Open Primaries

[johnhking1 105]

I can't remember where I saw this but it sail the money spent on the Harris campaign amounted to $66 per vote.

Must have been bad math, I got about $18.

Edited Tuesday at 05:40 PM by johnhking1

[billvon 3,179]

On 10/26/2025 at 6:50 AM, kallend said:

SO it's OK with you if the Dems decide to sabotage the Greens by encouraging their supporters to turn out in force in the primary to elect  oil company execs to be the Green candidate?

Nope.

Is it OK with you if the republicans try to sabotage the democrats by funding a green candidate to pull votes from democrats?  Didn't think so.

But solving either one of problems with a poll tax does far more harm than good.

[kallend 2,231]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

 

But solving either one of problems with a poll tax does far more harm than good.

That is a stupid argument.

Are primaries mandated in the Constitution?  Parties?

If not, then their elections are private and it's no more a poll tax than requiring membership of USPA to vote in USPA elections is a poll tax.

 

[JoeWeber 3,026]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Are primaries mandated in the Constitution?  Parties?

Nope. Nor are any after the fact obligations to those unforeseen problems. So what that you have the capacities to distinguish and know better. The problem is not you.

[billvon 3,179]

20 hours ago, kallend said:

Are primaries mandated in the Constitution?  Parties?

Nope.  

Poll taxes are as bad an idea for elections as they are for primaries.  Independents should be able to vote in any primary they choose; that will help to reduce the massive polarization we see today.  We need more independent voters to break the control the two-party system has over government.

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Nope.  

Poll taxes are as bad an idea for elections as they are for primaries.  Independents should be able to vote in any primary they choose; that will help to reduce the massive polarization we see today.  We need more independent voters to break the control the two-party system has over government.

Hi Bill,

IMO that is the only way we are going to get past the loonies on both ends of the bell curve.  Which IMO is not good for this country.

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,231]

Well, we will disagree.  I believe parties should be in control of their own affairs and not influenced by non-members, just like golf clubs, bowling leagues and USPA.

Maybe a return to smoke filled rooms would give better candidates.  Could hardly produce worse ones.

Edited Wednesday at 08:28 PM by kallend

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Well, we will disagree.  I believe parties should be in control of their own affairs and not influenced by non-members, just like golf clubs, bowling leagues and USPA.

Maybe a return to smoke filled rooms would give better candidates.  Could hardly produce worse ones.

Hi John,

I think you just made my case.

FYI I have never been a fan of smoke filled rooms, but they were better than what the 2-party system of today has given us.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I believe that is just fine to disagree. 

[dogyks 30]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Well, we will disagree.  I believe parties should be in control of their own affairs and not influenced by non-members, just like golf clubs, bowling leagues and USPA.

Maybe a return to smoke filled rooms would give better candidates.  Could hardly produce worse ones.

Depends on what they're smoking, I'd guess.

[JoeWeber 3,026]

46 minutes ago, dogyks said:

Depends on what they're smoking, I'd guess.

Absolutely. And if it's not cigars, but something slightly less carcinogenic, I'll guess that by correlation, if naught else, the candidates of choice might not fit your favored profile.