Cruz versus Sanders

[ryoder 1,590]

DanG

Quote

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought our elected officials were supposed top represent and serve *all* the citizens, not just the members of the party. Or are they entitled to represent and serve only the interests of their party, and not all of the citizenry? What entitles the Rep/Dem duopoly the right to exclude citizens from having a say in who is elected?

You know there's going to be another election in November, right?

With 300 million people in this country, the Republi-Crats expect the independent voters to sit on the side until November until they are presented with TWO, count 'em, TWO people to choose from. At least at the primary stage, that choice is expanded to perhaps 20 choices.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

kallend

In the context of a party selecting it's candidates, I think only party members should have a say. Maybe that is less ambiguous.

Same reason the US only allows US citizens to vote in US elections, Apple only allows Apple stockholders to vote (or submit proxy votes) on Apple issues, and California only allows CA residents to vote in CA state elections.

If you want to have a say in how any organization runs its affairs, you should join the organization.

Your corporate analogy is lame. Show me how the votes of Apple stockholders put every other company on the S&P500 under the control of the Apple BOD.

kallend

Do you think non members should vote in USPA BOD elections?

Do you think Californians should vote in Arizona gubernatorial elections?

Can you explain to me how the decisions of the USPA BOD affect non-USPA jumpers?
Or explain to me how much political power, the AZ gov has over CA citizens? Your analogy doesn't hold water.

Quote

A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government. They agree on some policies and programmes for the society with a view to promote the collective good or to further their supporters' interests.

So why should non-members and non supporters of the group have any say in the party's affairs?

A political party is seeking to put its member in a position of power that affects the lives of *ALL* the citizens, not just its members.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,148]

ryoder

***

Quote

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought our elected officials were supposed top represent and serve *all* the citizens, not just the members of the party. Or are they entitled to represent and serve only the interests of their party, and not all of the citizenry? What entitles the Rep/Dem duopoly the right to exclude citizens from having a say in who is elected?

You know there's going to be another election in November, right?

With 300 million people in this country, the Republi-Crats expect the independent voters to sit on the side until November until they are presented with TWO, count 'em, TWO people to choose from. At least at the primary stage, that choice is expanded to perhaps 20 choices.

Any group can form a party. It's still a (more or less) free country. The "independents" should create a party if they wish to propose a candidate, not leech onto existing parties that they don't actually support.

Whining that they can't influence a group that they CHOOSE not to belong to is just that, WHINING.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

kallend

Any group can form a party. It's still a (more or less) free country. The "independents" should create a party if they wish to propose a candidate, not leech onto existing parties that they don't actually support.

Free? Last estimate I read was $500M to run for POTUS.
There *are* other parties, but they don't get the corporate donors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

ryoder

***

Any group can form a party. It's still a (more or less) free country. The "independents" should create a party if they wish to propose a candidate, not leech onto existing parties that they don't actually support.

Free? Last estimate I read was $500M to run for POTUS.
There *are* other parties, but they don't get the corporate donors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Welcome to capitalism. Were you expecting anything else?

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Robert,

Quote

A political party is seeking to put its member in a position of power that affects the lives of *ALL* the citizens, not just its members.

While I understand your concern, John Kallend is correct.

And it is the state rules/laws that determine this. And we are only talking about the primaries; which are a part of the nominating process.

We tried to change the voting method in our primaries a few years ago. The Repub-Crats were completely against it. C'est la vie,

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

JerryBaumchen

We tried to change the voting method in our primaries a few years ago. The Repub-Crats were completely against it. C'est la vie,

Jerry Baumchen

One of the things done right in CO is mail-in ballots.
I vote in every election, and haven't been in a voting booth since the turn of the century.

On the other hand CO is totally fucked up wrt to primaries;
In 1992, CO joined the 20th century and began holding primary elections.
Then in 2008, it returned to the 19th century and went back the the caucus-circus bullshit.
This year, after standing in line for hours for the circus, many citizens were turned away because the facilities were too small.
Enough furor has been raised that moves are happening to go back to primaries.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,148]

ryoder

***

Any group can form a party. It's still a (more or less) free country. The "independents" should create a party if they wish to propose a candidate, not leech onto existing parties that they don't actually support.

Free? Last estimate I read was $500M to run for POTUS.
There *are* other parties, but they don't get the corporate donors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

None of which is relevant.

A political party is a private group. It has no more standing in the Constitution than your local golf club. If you want to elect its leaders, join the group. If you won't join, don't whine about the way it does its business.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

ryoder

With 300 million people in this country, the Republi-Crats expect the independent voters to sit on the side until November until they are presented with TWO, count 'em, TWO people to choose from. At least at the primary stage, that choice is expanded to perhaps 20 choices.

No point in arguing with them, you guys are talking past each other:

1 - ryoder - the rules need to be changed as the current rules are stupid

2 - others - your proposal breaks today's rules

repeat until nauseated

should vs is - two discussions that do not intersect

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

I'd be on board with a primary system that was simply designed to decide who should be on the ballot in a particular state. It would be a single primary, open to everyone. If Candidate A wanted people to know he/she/it was affiliated with a Party, then fine, but no party affiliation would appear on the primary ballot. Top four or five primary voter-getters would be on the ballot in November.

- Dan G

[ryoder 1,590]

DanG

I'd be on board with a primary system that was simply designed to decide who should be on the ballot in a particular state. It would be a single primary, open to everyone. If Candidate A wanted people to know he/she/it was affiliated with a Party, then fine, but no party affiliation would appear on the primary ballot. Top four or five primary voter-getters would be on the ballot in November.

I was thinking the same thing;
In fact, the parties could use it to decide who they wanted to back.
In effect, it would be the first round of a run-off election.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[CygnusX-1 43]

ryoder

In effect, it would be the first round of a run-off election.

But that is in effect where we are right now. Nobody is voting for president. They are just voting for who that party will represent them in the election.

John's right. Only party members should be able to vote for who represents them (their party) in the general election.

You want to vote for someone else in the general election, no one is saying that you cannot. They might try and convince you that you are wasting your vote. But you can vote for Mickey Mouse for president if you so choose.

This is the way we have chosen to run our system. Don't like it, change the system. Run for congress yourself. Start a grass-roots campaign. Question the current candidates about this issue. Or use the Second Amendment for what it is really for and overthrow the government and set up your own (if you are successful - but I doubt you will be).

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Poor Lyin' Ted.

Sent out a fundraising email whining about how hard it is to campaign for president.

As Sen. Warren aptly said, "boo hoo".

They both deserve each other. Throw and lock them both in an unpadded, unfurnished room, serve them gruel under the door and throw away the key.

[billvon 3,116]

>Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought our elected officials were supposed top represent and serve *all*
>the citizens, not just the members of the party.

They are! The election is in November.

> What entitles the Rep/Dem duopoly the right to exclude citizens from having a say in who is elected?

It doesn't.

Let's take another case. Let's say RushMC wants to run for president. So he joins the Constitution Party. Now, the Constitution Party has this rule that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart have to all approve any candidate. Ann Coulter doesn't like his stand on climate change, because RushMC once admitted that the climate was changing. So she doesn't approve and he doesn't get their nomination.

Has that diminished his right to run for office? No - he can still run independently.

Has that diminished your right to vote your conscience? No - you can still vote for him. You can even write him in if he doesn't run.

Does the fact that only three people out of 330 million "voted" for him diminish any of those rights? No.

[normiss 896]

These voters are going to be very unhappy when they learn how the Electoral College works.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Robert,

Quote

One of the things done right in CO is mail-in ballots.

As Oregon did many years ago. You have choices; you can mail it in using a stamp, you can drop it off at certain locations, or you can toss it and not vote.

There are no polling stations in Oregon anymore.

And of course, there was the one dufus at work who tried to claim that requiring you to buy a stamp was akin to a poll tax.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) IMO to improve this system, just work real hard to do whatever you can to eliminate all political parties. It will work, folks.

[TriGirl 343]

billvon

> What entitles the Rep/Dem duopoly the right to exclude citizens from having a say in who is elected?

It doesn't.

Let's take another case. Let's say RushMC wants to run for president. So he joins the Constitution Party.

The problem here is that according to the link provided elsewhere, the Constitution Party (at least in 2012) was only included on the ballot of 26 states. With nearly half the states not being given the Constitution candidate as an option, that candidate has VERY little chance of winning.

Quote

Has that diminished his right to run for office? No - he can still run independently.

Except according to figures I heard in a news report recently, the deadlines have passed to register independently in most states.

Quote

Has that diminished your right to vote your conscience? No - you can still vote for him.

True, if you've heard of him and know his platform. That kind of communication nationwide requires money, and currently only the two largest parties have that kind of money.

Quote

You can even write him in if he doesn't run.

I've done this a few times for people who did not win their party's nomination. However, I also heard in the above referenced news report (NPR, IIRC), that a significant number of states don't allow for write-ins. I'd be interested to learn how this is Constitutionally legal (seriously, some day I'm going to look into this to understand it).

Quote

Does the fact that only three people out of 330 million "voted" for him diminish any of those rights? No.

Absolutely agreed. It just doesn't give him any chance of being elected, which I'm sure was your point.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DanG 1]

When you cast a vote for President (November, not primary) you aren't really casting a vote for President. You are casting a vote for Electors, who will go to the Electoral College and represent your state (not you or your vote, your state). The Electors are chosen by the State, and pledge to cast their votes a certain way when they get to the Electoral College. They can change their vote (see Unfaithful Elector).

The Constitution gives States wide latitude on how they select their Electors. Voting for President is truly one of the least democratic parts of our representative republic.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,148]

TriGirl

***> What entitles the Rep/Dem duopoly the right to exclude citizens from having a say in who is elected?

It doesn't.

Let's take another case. Let's say RushMC wants to run for president. So he joins the Constitution Party.

The problem here is that according to the link provided elsewhere, the Constitution Party (at least in 2012) was only included on the ballot of 26 states. With nearly half the states not being given the Constitution candidate as an option, that candidate has VERY little chance of winning.



If a group of people (a party) fails to get its act together well enough to meet deadlines and get on ballots, then maybe its candidate's chances of winning SHOULD be minimal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Relevant portion of the Constitution (as amended):

Quote

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clear as mud, right?

- Dan G

[gowlerk 2,275]

Quote

If a group of people (a party) fails to get its act together well enough to meet deadlines and get on ballots, then maybe its candidate's chances of winning SHOULD be minimal.

There is a valid point here. The current system does strongly favour the status quo through empowering already established parties to largely determine who is on the ballot. But is that a bad idea? It keeps flash in the pan celebrity type candidates from sweeping in out of nowhere. It is important that the voters have a good look at who they are electing. Even Trump is by no means a total surprise, he has been making noises about the presidency for years. Even if no one took him serious.

Without the high bar imposed currently, if it was easy to get on the ballot, you might just find Boaty McBoatface coming out of a crowded field to clinch a win in November.

Of course the Electoral College would likely prevent that. And that's not a bad thing either.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[TriGirl 343]

DanG

Relevant portion of the Constitution (as amended):
Clear as mud, right?

No, makes total sense. So since (FAIK) there is no federal law dictating how the voting for the electors is to be conducted (e.g., write ins, ballots, levers, electronic, etc), then the states can determine their own systems for voters to select those electors. That means some states have a write-in option, and some do not.

Thanks!

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[TriGirl 343]

DanG

When you cast a vote for President (November, not primary) you aren't really casting a vote for President. You are casting a vote for Electors, who will go to the Electoral College and represent your state (not you or your vote, your state). The Electors are chosen by the State, and pledge to cast their votes a certain way when they get to the Electoral College. They can change their vote (see Unfaithful Elector).

The Constitution gives States wide latitude on how they select their Electors. Voting for President is truly one of the least democratic parts of our representative republic.

Specifically left the Electoral College out for the sake of simplicity. Since we're roughly equating percentage of votes in each state to winning all the electoral votes of each state, then the states that do not allow for write-in voting would inherently be out of reach for any non-registered candidate. And states that do not include a particular party on the ballots of that state give no chance (aside from write-in, if that is an option) for that third- or fourth-party candidate from having that state's electors cast their vote for him or her (again, assuming the faithful electors).

See how much longer my post would have been had I included the EC?

And I won't even get into how much of the definition of "democracy" is left out when we limit the discussion to voting!

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[kallend 2,148]

If you read the Federalist Paper #68 you will see that the EC is there precisely so that the elites don't get their wishes over-ruled by the unwashed masses.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

Primary rules by state;
Scroll to bottom of page, select tab for "Presidential Primaries" or "Congressional & State Primaries", then click on the desired state: http://www.openprimaries.org/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.