2016 Democratic Thread

[illinilaw08]

At stake here is not any elected office. It is an organization selecting their nominee. Primaries are not even required. As I mentioned above of the 14 parties that were on the 2012 ballot, two held primaries to help in making the decision of who would be their nominee twelve did not. People act like they were voting for President. The primaries are basically a traveling commercial to build support and publicity for their party.

 

There aren't many organizations that make it easy for people from outside the organization to influence major decisions by that organization. You're a shareholder of Coke? Sure, come in and vote at the Pepsi shareholder's meeting.

 

Well, at stake is the office of the Presidency. There aren't that many organizations that impact our every day lives more than the leader of the federal government.

 

If you are an independent and you actually want a say in who the nominees are for the next President of the United States, you are kept outside the process. Independent isn't a political party. In many cases, it just means sometimes you vote R, sometimes you vote D.

 

I don't think seeking a standardized system that provides access to the primary ballot for POTUS to everyone is asking for too much...

 

As true as it was in 1996,

.

[illinilaw08]

Then you stop being an independent. If you want to be involved at the primary level, you just stepped beyond independent and into the inner workings of a political party.

 

I don't follow that logic. When I check the box as "Democrat" when I register to vote, I am not estopped from voting for Republicans in elections. I can still be an Independent and be a part of the primary.

 

Basically, you are disenfranchising people who don't check a box...

Edited April 20, 2016 by illinilaw08

[Reddy]

I don't follow that logic. When I check the box as "Democrat" when I register to vote, I am not estopped from voting for Republicans in elections. I can still be an Independent and be a part of the primary.

 

Basically, you are disenfranchising people who don't check a box...

 

No... those people get to vote in November, which is what they signed up for when they refused to check a box. Personal responsibility and all that.

[Texsox]

I don't follow that logic. When I check the box as "Democrat" when I register to vote, I am not estopped from voting for Republicans in elections. I can still be an Independent and be a part of the primary.

 

Basically, you are disenfranchising people who don't check a box...

My comment was in response to the idea that independents should be allowed to decide who the D or R nominee is. My logic is the party gets to decide who their nominee is. If you want to be that involved in the process of selecting the D or R nominee you must be involved in that political party. If you care so much about who the D nominee is you should be a D. If you don't want to be a member of one party, why should you get to be a part of that party's decision making?

 

Where is the logic in having someone help decide the R nominee just to go vote for the D later?

[illinilaw08]

No... those people get to vote in November, which is what they signed up for when they refused to check a box. Personal responsibility and all that.

 

Does it say when you do not check the box that "failure to check a party box, or to update your records within six months on the presidential primary, will prevent you from participating in the selection of presidential candidates from either party"?

 

If not, then I struggle to see how this is a failure of personal responsibility.

 

Less access to the political process is a bad thing.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Independents shouldn't have any right to vote for a party's nominee. I echo all the previous sentiments posted by Tex/SS2K etc

 

Again. I have no problem not allowing people not in the party to vote. The problem is that people shouldn't have to decide 6 f***ing months in advance if they what to be in that party. It's ridiculous.

[illinilaw08]

My comment was in response to the idea that independents should be allowed to decide who the D or R nominee is. My logic is the party gets to decide who their nominee is. If you want to be that involved in the process of selecting the D or R nominee you must be involved in that political party. If you care so much about who the D nominee is you should be a D. If you don't want to be a member of one party, why should you get to be a part of that party's decision making?

 

Where is the logic in having someone help decide the R nominee just to go vote for the D later?

 

But there's nothing stopping that now. Granted each state does primaries differently, but if I'm registered as an R, I can vote for Kasich in my primary because I feel like he's the best choice for President. Then Trump gets the nomination, and I decide that Clinton suits my interests better. I can still cross parties and vote for Clinton.

 

So other than the fact that the Rs and Ds are private entities (which in a Presidential context is silly because they are the only two real choices for President), what is the logical basis for restricting access to the primaries?

[Reddy]

Again. I have no problem not allowing people not in the party to vote. The problem is that people shouldn't have to decide 6 f***ing months in advance if they what to be in that party. It's ridiculous.

that we can agree on.

[Reddy]

But there's nothing stopping that now. Granted each state does primaries differently, but if I'm registered as an R, I can vote for Kasich in my primary because I feel like he's the best choice for President. Then Trump gets the nomination, and I decide that Clinton suits my interests better. I can still cross parties and vote for Clinton.

 

So other than the fact that the Rs and Ds are private entities (which in a Presidential context is silly because they are the only two real choices for President), what is the logical basis for restricting access to the primaries?

um. only let the people who are invested in/care about your party having a say in who the candidate is? Makes sense to me.

[Texsox]

But there's nothing stopping that now. Granted each state does primaries differently, but if I'm registered as an R, I can vote for Kasich in my primary because I feel like he's the best choice for President. Then Trump gets the nomination, and I decide that Clinton suits my interests better. I can still cross parties and vote for Clinton.

 

So other than the fact that the Rs and Ds are private entities (which in a Presidential context is silly because they are the only two real choices for President), what is the logical basis for restricting access to the primaries?

 

The logic is that each party is created to further that party and should be allowed to do that as they see fit. Twelve political parties will select a nominee at a convention without primaries because that is the best way they can do it. The Dems and Reps hold caucasus and primaries so their party can select a nominee. They should be allowed to set rules that help assure that the people who are helping in the decision are the best people to make the selection. People who openly and willingly identify with a party are much more likely to donate their time, talent, and treasure to that party and to help elect that candidate. They are the more valuable voice in the decision making. They are also the ones that will vote no matter what.

 

Again, this is a political party decision. What logic is there in allowing non-members to decide who that party nominates? Where is the logic in a party creating rules that encourages non members over regular members? They would be creating rules that could hurt them.

[illinilaw08]

The logic is that each party is created to further that party and should be allowed to do that as they see fit. Twelve political parties will select a nominee at a convention without primaries because that is the best way they can do it. The Dems and Reps hold caucasus and primaries so their party can select a nominee. They should be allowed to set rules that help assure that the people who are helping in the decision are the best people to make the selection. People who openly and willingly identify with a party are much more likely to donate their time, talent, and treasure to that party and to help elect that candidate. They are the more valuable voice in the decision making. They are also the ones that will vote no matter what.

 

Again, this is a political party decision. What logic is there in allowing non-members to decide who that party nominates? Where is the logic in a party creating rules that encourages non members over regular members? They would be creating rules that could hurt them.

 

Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates.

 

Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box.

 

I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick.

[Reddy]

Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates.

 

Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box.

 

I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick.

 

You want that system, start your own party! The Democratic and Republican parties have no obligation to you as a voter.

[StrangeSox]

You want that system, start your own party! The Democratic and Republican parties have no obligation to you as a voter.

they want to attract voters, though, and stuff like this pushes them away.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Hamilton to stay on $10; Tubman replacing Jackson

 

Wonder how much that Hamilton play influenced this change? Originally, Hamilton was supposed to be gone and Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson was to remain on the $20.

Jackson is still on there. Tubman is going on the other side. I like the move. Gives more space to honor everyone instead of the random "illuminati" stuff and bland buildings that people don't even notice are there.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[Reddy]

they want to attract voters, though, and stuff like this pushes them away.

 

Nah. 6 months from now the independents who care will still vote. And the ones who liked Bernie won't vote Trump.

 

[bmags]

Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates.

 

Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box.

 

I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick.

 

You could switch party affiliations every election.

[StrangeSox]

Nah. 6 months from now the independents who care will still vote. And the ones who liked Bernie won't vote Trump.

Or they may be pissed off about the various anti-democratic issues in the primaries and caucuses and some of the rhetoric coming from some Democrats and just stay home. Why be intentionally antagonistic?

[bmags]

Honestly not sure this is a bridge I will cross. I get that there are two parties and you feel you are above them. But registering as a republican or democrat has literally one benefit and it is being a part of the process in nominating them.

 

Fine with standardizing them nationally, but still...if you aren't a democrat, why should you be guaranteed to be able to vote for their party leader?

[illinilaw08]

You could switch party affiliations every election.

 

I could! I guess I don't see why that's a problem.

 

ETA: If I'm middle of the road policy wise, and four years ago, I wasn't sure if I preferred Romney to Obama, I might have wanted to pull an R because I'd rather choose between Romney and Obama than Obama and Herman Cain.

 

This year, if I'm middle of the road, I might want to pull an R ballot to vote for Kasich or I might want to pull a D ballot to vote for Hillary, because I'd rather have Hillary than Sanders or Kasich to Trump/Cruz.

 

In either event, I'm identifying with the potential candidates for the highest office in the country. In either event, I'm not voting maliciously. In either event, I'm not legally estopped from pulling the ballot if I jump through the hoops to timely change my affiliation.

 

Why is changing parties each primary season as described above a bad thing?

Edited April 20, 2016 by illinilaw08

[cabiness42]

You could switch party affiliations every election.

 

I do it often. Voted D in 2008 to vote against Hillary. Voted R in 2010 to vote for Lugar over Murdouch. Voted D in 2012 to vote for a Congressional candidate. Voting R in 2016 to vote for Kasich.

[bmags]

I could! I guess I don't see why that's a problem.

 

ETA: If I'm middle of the road policy wise, and four years ago, I wasn't sure if I preferred Romney to Obama, I might have wanted to pull an R because I'd rather choose between Romney and Obama than Obama and Herman Cain.

 

This year, if I'm middle of the road, I might want to pull an R ballot to vote for Kasich or I might want to pull a D ballot to vote for Hillary, because I'd rather have Hillary than Sanders or Kasich to Trump/Cruz.

 

In either event, I'm identifying with the potential candidates for the highest office in the country. In either event, I'm not voting maliciously. In either event, I'm not legally estopped from pulling the ballot if I jump through the hoops to timely change my affiliation.

 

Why is changing parties each primary season as described above a bad thing?

 

I think we have different definitions of "jumping through hoops"

[illinilaw08]

Honestly not sure this is a bridge I will cross. I get that there are two parties and you feel you are above them. But registering as a republican or democrat has literally one benefit and it is being a part of the process in nominating them.

 

Fine with standardizing them nationally, but still...if you aren't a democrat, why should you be guaranteed to be able to vote for their party leader?

 

It's not that "you feel you are above them." It's that those are the only two realistic choices for the Presidency. Whether I'm a Democrat, Republican, or something else, I only have two real votes for the next President (leaving aside voting to obtain benchmarks like getting a party on future ballots). Why shouldn't I be able to vote my self interest at the primary without extra hurdles or paperwork involved?

[Texsox]

Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates.

 

Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box.

 

I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick.

 

How the individual party decides to select their candidate should be their choice. You are making the choice to disenfranchise yourself by not following the rules the party voluntarily put in place. There are no constitutional requirements for primaries.

 

You can continue to deny seeing the logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Reddy]

How the individual party decides to select their candidate should be their choice. You are making the choice to disenfranchise yourself by not following the rules the party voluntarily put in place. There are no constitutional requirements for primaries.

 

You can continue to deny seeing the logic, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

This.

[StrangeSox]

 

 

[context: Trump often says someone got fired "like a dog." no, it doesn't make any sense]