That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but to me this reads as associating the right to "organize and maintain a political party" with "the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership". As in the parties have the right to determine their policies and membership.
Right. And the court decided that that argument was a load of crap, because if a major political party decided to determine their membership and "exercise their freedom of association" to keep out the undesirables, those people thus excluded would lose their right to equal protection under the law.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
Technically, Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential caucuses.
You know, the most closed of closed primary processes.
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
No, because a political party's candidate selection process, despite appearances, is not an election.
If primaries aren't an election, then why do my tax dollars pay for primaries for your private political parties?
If Republicans field three candidates and the Democrats none in an election, then how is the primary not the election that is deciding whom will be put in office?
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
Technically, Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential caucuses.
You know, the most closed of closed primary processes.
I know, right? He did well in caucuses and in open primaries, and so now we've got people arguing against caucuses for being undemocratic and against open primaries for letting in the riffraff.
+4
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
racial discrimination is in a different class than what you're talking about.
a restaurant is allowed to take and require reservations. it is not allowed to deny service to black people.
+8
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
racial discrimination is in a different class than what you're talking about.
a restaurant is allowed to take and require reservations. it is not allowed to deny service to black people.
When people start falling back on "freedom of association" as a means of denying the vote, it hits a certain note
sort of like during the gay marriage debate, when the "compromise position" was put forward that gays could have an equal but separate system of civil unions
The situations aren't the same, but they rhyme.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
it would be nice if you could talk about this without baselessly accusing your opponents of being lazy and selfish
nothing that anyone has said about this is demonstrative of either of those traits
+5
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
racial discrimination is in a different class than what you're talking about.
a restaurant is allowed to take and require reservations. it is not allowed to deny service to black people.
When people start falling back on "freedom of association" as a means of denying the vote, it hits a certain note
sort of like during the gay marriage debate, when the "compromise position" was put forward that gays could have an equal but separate system of civil unions
The situations aren't the same, but they rhyme.
this is not "denying the vote"
it's asking people who want to vote in a political primary to register for that party.
I think the NY cutoff was too far out and the NY Dem party should reassess the registration timeframe requirement, but I don't find the registration requirement unfair.
I do think caucuses are problematic since they make it difficult or impossible for many people to participate and they remove the virtues of the secret ballot.
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
it would be nice if you could talk about this without baselessly accusing your opponents of being lazy and selfish
nothing that anyone has said about this is demonstrative of either of those traits
Or, you could read what was actually said and address the point.
This poster is complaining that it is too hard to act disruptively. Cry me a river.
As a party member I have a vested interest in the parties mitigating (not even preventing!) this type of behavior.
moreover strategic voting is actually problematic with regards to the validity (that is the liklihood that a condorcet winner will be chosen if present) of elections
Is the goal being sought here that every voter gets to vote in every private party's primary every cycle?
Every hard right radical weighs in on the leader of the Progressive Party? Every ultra-commie power-hippie helps choose the Republican nominee?
And why is this a good idea? Assuming equal participation, you'd wind up with a dozen parties with essentially the same platform, somewhat ironically watering down your options in the actual election.
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
it would be nice if you could talk about this without baselessly accusing your opponents of being lazy and selfish
nothing that anyone has said about this is demonstrative of either of those traits
Or, you could read what was actually said and address the point.
This poster is complaining that it is too hard to act disruptively. Cry me a river.
As a party member I have a vested interest in the parties mitigating (not even preventing!) this type of behavior.
If by "act disruptively" you mean "vote in the only meaningful election for the office" then yeah.
"Cry me a river" is a shit argument for ID checks at polling places and it's a shit argument here too for the same reason.
Is the goal being sought here that every voter gets to vote in every private party's primary every cycle?
Every hard right radical weighs in on the leader of the Progressive Party? Every ultra-commie power-hippie helps choose the Republican nominee?
And why is this a good idea? Assuming equal participation, you'd wind up with a dozen parties with essentially the same platform, somewhat ironically watering down your options in the actual election.
And yet, in states that already have open primaries your nightmare scenario didn't come to pass, so maybe you need to reevaluate something.
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
it would be nice if you could talk about this without baselessly accusing your opponents of being lazy and selfish
nothing that anyone has said about this is demonstrative of either of those traits
Or, you could read what was actually said and address the point.
This poster is complaining that it is too hard to act disruptively. Cry me a river.
As a party member I have a vested interest in the parties mitigating (not even preventing!) this type of behavior.
If by "act disruptively" you mean "vote in the only meaningful election for the office" then yeah.
"Cry me a river" is a shit argument for ID checks at polling places and it's a shit argument here too for the same reason.
ahhh, the classic slippery slope.
maybe if it is "the only meaningful election for the office" you should "become a member of that party"?
Whatever value this thread had in 2013 seems to have been usefully extracted, and now this barren land appears to be hosting a proxy battle about the most recent political contest. Pity, that.
Posts
Technically, Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential caucuses.
You know, the most closed of closed primary processes.
It's another unnecessary barrier to voting, because I need to remember which party to switch to for which off-year elections.
I mean, I personally can keep up, but I can also take a day off work to wait at the DMV for five hours to get an ID card; I have the privilege necessary to keep jumping the hurdles.
If primaries aren't an election, then why do my tax dollars pay for primaries for your private political parties?
If Republicans field three candidates and the Democrats none in an election, then how is the primary not the election that is deciding whom will be put in office?
I know, right? He did well in caucuses and in open primaries, and so now we've got people arguing against caucuses for being undemocratic and against open primaries for letting in the riffraff.
racial discrimination is in a different class than what you're talking about.
a restaurant is allowed to take and require reservations. it is not allowed to deny service to black people.
To voting for the direction and leadership of a party.
Let's be clear here. You have zero rights being infringed. You have chosen to vote strategically, possibly against the needs/wants of party members - and yet the parties need to accommodate you?
But when the parties are like "fuck off brah" - you aren't one of us. That's on them?
Pretty selfish of you IMHO to be too lazy to actually work for your strategic disruption.
When people start falling back on "freedom of association" as a means of denying the vote, it hits a certain note
sort of like during the gay marriage debate, when the "compromise position" was put forward that gays could have an equal but separate system of civil unions
The situations aren't the same, but they rhyme.
it would be nice if you could talk about this without baselessly accusing your opponents of being lazy and selfish
nothing that anyone has said about this is demonstrative of either of those traits
this is not "denying the vote"
it's asking people who want to vote in a political primary to register for that party.
I think the NY cutoff was too far out and the NY Dem party should reassess the registration timeframe requirement, but I don't find the registration requirement unfair.
I do think caucuses are problematic since they make it difficult or impossible for many people to participate and they remove the virtues of the secret ballot.
Or, you could read what was actually said and address the point.
This poster is complaining that it is too hard to act disruptively. Cry me a river.
As a party member I have a vested interest in the parties mitigating (not even preventing!) this type of behavior.
Every hard right radical weighs in on the leader of the Progressive Party? Every ultra-commie power-hippie helps choose the Republican nominee?
And why is this a good idea? Assuming equal participation, you'd wind up with a dozen parties with essentially the same platform, somewhat ironically watering down your options in the actual election.
If by "act disruptively" you mean "vote in the only meaningful election for the office" then yeah.
"Cry me a river" is a shit argument for ID checks at polling places and it's a shit argument here too for the same reason.
And yet, in states that already have open primaries your nightmare scenario didn't come to pass, so maybe you need to reevaluate something.
ahhh, the classic slippery slope.
maybe if it is "the only meaningful election for the office" you should "become a member of that party"?
and then it's too hard to switch back!