The Crosscut blog provides a definitive rebuttal to the whining, including from local editorial boards, on the topic of our state's system of primaries and caucuses. Short version: it's the political parties' "own damn business" how they ultimately decide on their nominees.
Perhaps that also means we should go the route of South Carolina and have the parties pay for any Presidential primary held in the future.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 27, 2008 08:03 AM | Email ThisThat is it exactly.
Posted by: pbj on February 27, 2008 08:03 AMThe Democrats can say with some pride that our caucuses did not cost the taxpayers a dime. Some people would like to have it both ways.
Posted by: ivan on February 27, 2008 08:43 AMYou would be more believable if the primary ballots did not have a Democratic slate.
But by having Democratic candidates on the primary ballot, the Democratic party was able to expand its mailing list - all paid for by the taxpayers.
Sure, the Republicans expanded their mailing lists as well, but at least the Republicans "paid" for your name by allowing your vote to count. The Democrats got your name for free - I mean, at no cost to themselves.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 27, 2008 09:20 AMThere's no "pride" to be had here by anyone, except amateur hacks spinning inexplicable conduct by a political party like a top.
So the democrats should take pride in wasting millions of dollars.... for nothing... except a list?
Both parties should reimburse the state for thew costs THEY incurred.
Millions of dollars wasted by the democrats... and you take PRIDE in that?
Of course you do. WHy would I even ask.
Posted by: Hinton on February 27, 2008 09:26 AMDid you go to school to be a moron, or does it just come naturally?
The Democratic Party did not ask for the primary. It was shoved down our throats by paid signature gatherers and a spineless Legislature. We'd get rid of it if we could. I see the GOP has no problem sucking off the public teat.
We don't use lists from the primary. We use lists from caucuses that WE PAY FOR OURSELVES.
It's our money, and we can use it as we see fit. Right now we are using it to kick your sorry right-wing butts all over this state. Reality must really suck for you. Have some cheese with your whine, loser.
If it's the parties' own business how they conduct their nominating process -- and I agree that is is -- then you can't make them even have a primary, much less "have them pay for it."
No one said otherwise. The obvious implication to those who have brains is that you "have them pay for it" IF they want to have it.
The Democrats can say with some pride that our caucuses did not cost the taxpayers a dime.
Um, neither did the Republican caucuses.
The Democratic Party did not ask for the primary.
Um. Neither did the GOP. Also, note that the primary was created by the Democratic-controlled legislature.
It was shoved down our throats by paid signature gatherers
Why do you have such antipathy toward our state constitution? Toward democracy?
and a spineless Legislature.
A Democratic legislature.
We'd get rid of it if we could. I see the GOP has no problem sucking off the public teat.
Stop embarassing yourself. This is about the most childish thing I've seen in weeks, which is saying a lot, since I read portions of Goldy's site this week. The people asked for a primary, ask to be involved, and volunteer to pay for it; the GOP says, well, OK, as long as you sign a declaration for our party, that's fine, we'll count it for a portion of our delegates.
And this, to you, is "sucking off the public teat": using a process that exists already, that will exist whether we use the results or not.
You're making no sense whatsoever.
We don't use lists from the primary.
That is a lie. Dwight Pelz is on the record saying they will use the lists from the primary for the state party's voter database.
Oops ... your high horse just ran off into the sunset without you.
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 10:12 AMI agree, and pro-sports teams should pay for their own stadiums. Of course that will happen when pigs sprout wings and fly.
In essence, they denied an average citizen who gives hundreds of dollars a year to the state GOP the ability to even be sure his/her vote for their GOP candidate of choice is heard. In one section of the ruling they say those people should determine the nomination process, then in another section they say they shouldn't determine the process unless they are even more 'insider' than giving the money, watching polls, etc.
The Ninth Circuit is whacked and those who attempt to defend it's judgements really should question themselves. Most of the time, even when the Supremes uphold their decision, they are only upholding the order and not the reasoning.
In short, it may be the parties "own damn business", but if they subsequently leave out whole classes of their memberships, it might not be their own damn business.
Posted by: Doug on February 27, 2008 11:52 AM1. Eliminate primaries
2. Allow Caucuses to choose committed delegates to their county conventions
3. Allow county conventions to choose committed delegates to the state conventions, as well as choose state legislative and county candidates from their county to run on their party banner.
4. The state convention would choose their party's choice for President, US Senator, US Representative.
Example: if you want to run as a party member for County Commissioner, you must get the approval at the County Convention of your party to be considered a candidate of that party.
If you want to be a party candidate for a State or National position, you must get the majority vote by the delegates at the State convention.
There would be no more "Primaries" costing the state millions to conduct and at the General Election each party would have one candidate for ALL the people to vote for--up or down!
If you want a say as to who runs as a Democrat (or Republican) you must involve yourself in the process--without taxpayer money.
Forget the top two scheme which if the state was mostly Republican the top two would usually be Republicans, just as it is right now democrat.
Candidates not wishing to be considered a party member, could have a process of being on the General Election ballot. Perhaps get a percentage of signatures. That could be worked out.
However, I am not a top feeder in the political process and appear my thoughts fall on deaf ears.
Posted by: Ken Howard on February 27, 2008 01:50 PMHowever there was a type of registering in the last election, by choosing which party ballot to take before voting and when people attended a caucus they agreed they were a party member on that day and agreed not to vote otherwise in the primary.
Political parties can go to their local auditor and request (and get) the list of people who chose one or the other party ballots.
Guess that is like being registered. Grin....
Posted by: Ken Howard on February 27, 2008 03:45 PMInstead of a primary and a general election there would be an election with two rounds. If no candidate gets more than half the votes in the first round, a second round would take place a few weeks later where the two top vote getters from the first round would go up against each other.
Posted by: GS on February 27, 2008 07:43 PMThe presidential preference primary suffered from not one constitutioal defect. Not one.
The parties were not required to use the results to allocate convention delegates among the candidates.
The votes cast by "independents" were tabulated and reported separately from the votes of those who declared their party affiliations.
You call it "whining" when people urge the parties to use the results of the presidential primary election. You call it "whining" when independents complain about the elimination of their opportunity to cast votes which will be counted and reported for whatever effect it may have on the presidential race. Can you really offer nothing more than an adolescent insult? Have you no argument based on reason?
Posted by: Micajah on February 28, 2008 12:52 PMState law, based on a voter initiative demanding it.
Why were only Democrat or Republican ballots offered? What about other Party's candidates? For example, why isn't the state subsidizing the Green party selection process too? It seems to me the state is, in effect, playing favorites to the D's and R's.
Also state law. The primaries apply to "major political parties," which are defined based on voter turnout of at least five percent of the vote for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator, or statwide office. A few years ago, the Libertarian Party was on the primary ballot.
It is not the state playing favorites, it's the voters.
Posted by: pudge on February 29, 2008 09:54 AMGeorge Washington, our first president in his Farewell Address, had a great deal to say in warning of political parties and factions in America:
"All obstructions to be execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundaamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They (political parties) serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of diffeent parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
"However combination or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
--George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html
Posted by: David Wolbeck on March 2, 2008 02:34 AM