SenorArdilla
Member
The Economist is not a fan of Trump.
Isn't that's just Ego.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Isn't that's just Ego.
User 463088
Banned
I guess for the same reason that the state restricts my ability to vote in a contest in a congressional district in which I don't live. Or for the same reasons that the state often gets involved in issues that come up between two private parties. Also, in most instance even in closed primaries, there are Democratic, Republican and Independent ballots, depending on state law. I've also never said they have no public interest value. Your argument fails, to me at least, in that states already restrict voting access to people who are registered or not registered. I see no issue with restricting access to primary elections based on party registration.
Jack Remington
Banned
Bill is going to need to sit this one out. I've felt this way for awhile now.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Sure, as long as they're still closed.
And you've got a fundamental misunderstanding here. You keep saying that if you don't like X left wing party, you can vote for Y left wing party instead. This is true in the Democratic Party through the caucuses! I think you're really just mad that the group you'd want isn't popular and wouldn't get support in any system.
Like, clearly Sanders is the most left wing American politician at the federal level, and he's losing. He's never had that many allies, and so why would your proposed system lead to anything different than another Green Party (i.e. a pretty unpopular group that gets ignored)?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The state enforces private contracts and upholds the law, but otherwise the state (should) only get involved when there is public interest. You haven't actually answered the question of why this ought to be done, you've just said "it is done". Why? What is the justification?
I mean, I think states are flat out right for not automatically registering everyone at the relevant age of eligibility as it is.
Anyone who is a citizen ought to be able to vote, and registering ought to be merely a formality necessary to ensure the paperwork can be checked and so on, not some kind of arbitre of political worth. Most of your arguments have just come down to "this is the way things are", though. That's not really a good answer to the question "how should they be?".RustyNails
Member
I wonder what the speaking schedule gonna be like at DNC?
I'm thinking Bill Clinton -> Bernie -> VP Perez -> Biden -> B-Rock The Islamic Shock -> Hillary
Man it will be one for the ages
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right. And in this world, how do you fund primaries at all? They're ludicrously expensive. If you agree that closed primaries means that parties ought to keep the bill for said primaries, and you also agree that parties would be unable to run primaries (I mean, they probably could for presidential nominees, just about, but local candidacies would be beyond them) without this funding, aren't you just saying you'd rather see primaries abolished?
No. You're really, really not reading my posts. Let's say I live in Germany. I'm rightwing in this world, and normally I'd vote CDU. However, I think the CDU's policies are less good than I might otherwise want. As a result, I can vote for the FDP. As a result, the FDP gets more seats. The CDU have to compromise and offer the FDP at least some of their policies, because if they don't, the FDP will not go into coalition with them. The CDU also have to commit to this, because if at any point in the coalition they start reneging on this promise, the FDP can pull out.
Contrast: let's say I live in America. I'm leftwing in this world, and normally I'd vote <central Democrat> in the primaries. However, I think Clinton's policies are less good than I might otherwise want. As a result, I can vote for Sanders in the primaries. However, Sanders doesn't win. Clinton becomes the nominee. Clinton does not have to compromise, because she is the nominee regardless of what Sanders does or does not do from that stage on. The only reason she might want to compromise, is to make sure Sanders endorses her for the presidential. However, she has no reason to commit to this, because once she actually is president, he cannot affect her capacity to retain office from that point.
In the first scenario, politics ends up being consensual. Sectional interests are represented in proportion to their electoral support. The CDU as the larger party will get the lion's share of policy implementation, but the FDP will still be able to guarantee concessions. In the second scenario, politics ends up being absolutist. A 49% minority is not guaranteed to get a single concession.
See above. Proportional systems foster a fundamentally different type of politics.
RastaMentality
Banned
I'm about to meet Kamala Harris. I hope she's a queen!
!! Will she be at the Bill rally later today?
User 463088
Banned
The state enforces private contracts and upholds the law, but otherwise the state (should) only get involved when there is public interest. You haven't actually answered the question of why this ought to be done, you've just said "it is done". Why? What is the justification?
I mean, I think states are flat out right for not automatically registering everyone at the relevant age of eligibility as it is.
I mean, I'm fine with the parties having to pay for them. So...sure? I believe these are private events, so the state's involvement is unimportant to me. I have no issue with the party having to pay.
Indeed.
I don't think anyone has ever addressed my assertion that conservatives heavily rely on traditional political correctness - which has sadly had its most common vernacular definition eroded away to "not saying openly rude shit to minorities" - and connotation smuggling fuckery. I've certainly made the point repeatedly over the years, and I've yet to see a challenge to it.
It also helped delude the party into not seeing the rise if the alt-right to prominence - no one wanted to be politically incorrect and say "wow, sure looks like the Republican base is starting to prioritize racism and xenophobia over coherent policy", and now they have Trump igniting the dumpster fire after years and years of ignoring the trash piling up.
RastaMentality
Banned
I don't even know. It's an actual meet and greet so maybe I should ask. But I also wanna talk about her being Jamaican, so.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The alternative to running primaries would be reverting to caucuses, or having party leaders just decide. I can't see how that would be a preferable outcome. Public primaries are in the public interest.
Again, the real issue here is the constitution and how it enables the two-party lock. ll the rest of this is essentially whining with no productive suggestions.
Again, the real issue here is the constitution and how it enables the two-party lock. ll the rest of this is essentially whining with no productive suggestions.
It would be hilarious if they put Bernie right after Bill, because Bernie would never get a chance to make his usual stump speech. Bill is a long winded oldbag, isn't he?
Abinash117
Member
I don't think anybody should vote in most states within a primary, I do think that some states should allow independents to vote in the primary. Also there should be easier ways to people to become a party member, but also ways to prevent people from conducting party raiding.
The main issue I have with allowing anyone to vote is that you can potentially have large swaths of people who aren't affiliated with the party try to enforce their views that might be harmful to certain interests that the party constituents have. For example, a large segment of independents want to combat a issue that is somewhat popular and at the same time particularly fringe in someways, but can turn off the voters whom have been in the party; that can cause friction that won't be helpful; because of that you can get a lot more people who might not be interested in the party themselves or the voters, and want to shape the party in such a way that benefits themselves. Many cases it may not be successful, but will cause unnecessary disruptions within the party. Many of the independents have little knowledge or little interest about the issues that a party runs on and how it benefits them and in cases might totally ignore in a pursuit to change the party to how the way they want it. A group might make the Democrat party far more economic focused, and abandon the social issues that the party might run on. That is not something that will benefit the party as a whole.
Party leaders, officials, and voters in many cases know what is valuable to the party and obviously have inside knowledge to how these policies benefits them and have good reasons to support them. It would not be very wise to have individuals who cares little about that to change it to something that might make the party more unpopular. These is the one of reasons very little third parties have gain in sort if traction and political power.
The main issue I have with allowing anyone to vote is that you can potentially have large swaths of people who aren't affiliated with the party try to enforce their views that might be harmful to certain interests that the party constituents have. For example, a large segment of independents want to combat a issue that is somewhat popular and at the same time particularly fringe in someways, but can turn off the voters whom have been in the party; that can cause friction that won't be helpful; because of that you can get a lot more people who might not be interested in the party themselves or the voters, and want to shape the party in such a way that benefits themselves. Many cases it may not be successful, but will cause unnecessary disruptions within the party. Many of the independents have little knowledge or little interest about the issues that a party runs on and how it benefits them and in cases might totally ignore in a pursuit to change the party to how the way they want it. A group might make the Democrat party far more economic focused, and abandon the social issues that the party might run on. That is not something that will benefit the party as a whole.
Party leaders, officials, and voters in many cases know what is valuable to the party and obviously have inside knowledge to how these policies benefits them and have good reasons to support them. It would not be very wise to have individuals who cares little about that to change it to something that might make the party more unpopular. These is the one of reasons very little third parties have gain in sort if traction and political power.
RastaMentality
Banned
The uber driver asked what I was going to sac for and I said "oh a Hillary rally. Her husband is speaking" lol. Feminism is in control here.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Right, okay. But the parties couldn't afford primaries if the states didn't cover the bill. I mean they could probably do the big ones, like the presidential nominations, but not much more. So you're now just saying you'd rather abolish the primaries, which seems... odd.
Also, Bill's a damn good speaker. It'd be like my high school band being the act after Bruce Springsteen.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I saw bill back in April in Albany. Dude still has it
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree, which is whey they ought to be public proper - i.e., not closed.
I also agree, but as pigeon and I were saying earlier, it's much easier to change the parties than the constitution, because a) the US constitution is ridiculously entrenched (two-thirds majority in both houses AND three-fourths of all states? get out of here), and b) there are ridiculously strong social norms in the US that make the constitution out to be the best thing since sex, so you can't really publicly criticize it anyway.
I've seen him once or twice myself, dude can still work a room.
EDIT: Springsteen too. I saw him do The River at MSG a while back and goddamn.
It'd be funny if Bernie just gave his standard campaign stump speech at the convention, talking about his average donation is $27 and the like.
nature boy
Member
I want to see Obama going all-in on Trump, using his wit and his (superior) delivery.
Roland_Gunner
Member
You're conflating the process of selecting of candidates and the actual election process. In Germany, if you support a party that doesn't get a certain number of seats then they aren't allowed to join the Bundestag at all. If you vote for a party that doesn't get any seats are you suddenly governed without consent?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
If that's the whole point you were trying to get across, I didn't get it.
There's too much chance of shenanigans in places like CA and NY, where one part dominates. I think having a set single-day closed primary, and a caveat that you can't re-register afterwards for 30 days would work. I think if there could be some provision that you had to vote in the GE the candidate that you voted in the primary, that might work too.
He is a good speaker, but you give Bill an hour of allocated time and he talks for two.
Tell her the gays love her
So he's just like Bruce Springsteen! Only slightly worse because he's never done anything as good as Jungleland.
Preach Reid, preach.
I'm all aboard the Perez train now anyway after his overtime pay slam dunk
*splooge*
Where's O'malley!?
Bill is Monday Night since he is the spouse. Bernie will probably be on Tuesday or Wednesday Night. Obama on Thursday Night. Hillary on Friday Night. VP nominee and Keynote for Tuesday or Wednesday Night.
I doubt Biden gets a prime-time speaking spot.
A forgettable non-prime time speaking spot.
I doubt Biden gets a prime-time speaking spot.
A forgettable non-prime time speaking spot.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Just having them same-day is good enough. I mean, the amount of people who participate in these kinds of shenanigans is tiny, primaries don't even get good turn-out from people who actually care in the first place and if they're on the same day, you can't vote in both. Forcing people to voting in the GE as they did in the primary is a pretty terrible idea, too - there's a minimum of four months of campaigning between those two events, sometimes more if you're an early primary state, and a lot of stuff can happen between then to legitimately change your mind.
User 463088
Banned
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying I don't see a disconnect between states determining who can vote in a primary and states paying for them. Just because the state is funding the bill, doesn't mean anyone is being disenfranchised if it is a closed primary. The state has an interest in making sure only registered voters can vote. They have an interest in making sure you only vote once. They have an interest in making sure you vote in elections in your district. These interests are not opposed to the primary process being a party affair. The status of a primary, either open or closed is determined by the state itself.
Basically, my opinion is I don't really care who pays for them. I believe they should be closed, on both sides, with a 30 day window for switching party registration. That's just my personal opinion.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They're not really different at this point. Different candidates in the American primaries would belong to different parties in any other political system.
I strongly dislike the threshold, for what it's worth, but at least it is only 5%. In America, the threshold to have *any* influence is 50%. Any influence at all.
And most people are governed without consent. Voting for a party that takes office isn't the same as consenting to be ruled by them. That's not the issue here.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why? These are private organizations (by your argument, at least). Why should the state care who determines their nominee or how, any more than they care about who runs the Murrayfield Cricket Club or the local girl scout's association?
Why? These are private organizations. I mean, the Democratic Party has an interest in doing this, but... why should the state care?
Why? These are private organizations..
Sure, but opinions aren't always right or defensible.
The state cares in all of the above examples because the Republican and Democratic Parties are integral to the way that American democracy works; they couldn't operate without them. They're more than private bodies and shouldn't be understood that way.NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm seeing the River show at metlife in august. I've seen him twice
Sweet. He always puts on a great show.
Yup. I've had a rough draft done since I grabbed it up. I had to write something up real fast when it looked like it might go contested, but now I'm back on my original idea. Which kinda sucks since the contested convention one (Gangs of New York themed) was pure gold.
Why, you want to coordinate? I'm still waiting on hearing who will be speaking to finish up the draft though.
RustyNails
Member
DNC basement with skeletons of forgotten candidates
RastaMentality
Banned
Governor Jerry just endorsed Kamala. Got to see two relevant people already!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not hung up on it; I actually support it - I think most of us here do. My point is that we support it because we think that provision of the means for democratic participation *is* a public good; we fund parties because they provide this. If they do not fulfill this role sufficiently, which they do not at the point that they effectively monopolize the political landscape, they ought not receive it. It is something which is conditional on them fulfilling this role. You know from UK PoliGAF that I'm pretty ardently in favour of dropping FPTP there to ensure this competitiveness criteria is met. Once it has, I think state funding is a great thing - in fact, I'd rather parties were funded entirely by the state in proportion to their votes so that votes determined party policy and not donations.
Tranqueris
Banned
I'm not gonna worry about the Trump and Bill thing until we see how they respond or if it gets any traction. There's no way that this is something that they never expected to get hit with. How they respond to it is another thing though.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Why is it that former candidates don't campaign for the candidate? Like, Howard Dean for example. The guy just yelled, what's the big deal? Lost all appeal as a result? I don't get it.
User 463088
Banned
Why? These are private organizations (by your argument, at least). Why should the state care who determines their nominee or how, any more than they care about who runs the Murrayfield Cricket Club or the local girl scout's association?
Why? These are private organizations. I mean, the Democratic Party has an interest in doing this, but... why should the state care?
Why? These are private organizations..
Sure, but opinions aren't always right or defensible.
My arguments as to their interest were related to general election not primaries. I should have made that clear. Since the Democratic party has the same interests when it comes to primaries and General elections, there's no issue, in my mind at least, with letting the states run the thing.
By your argument, why should I, as someone who lives in Ohio, not be allowed to vote in Michigan's primary if I so decide? After all, the way Michigan votes is integral to American democracy, is it not? Why should I not be allowed to vote for the Cuyahoga county auditor even though I don't live there?
Your argument is boiling down to the state is paying for them, ergo everyone should be allowed to participate. Good news! They can! Everyone who is a registered voter is welcome to participate in the Democratic primary....if they are registered Democrats.
A closed primary is not, in and of itself, disenfranchising. I will never agree that either party should be allowing, willynilly, anyone who shows up to fuck with what is, essentially, an internal party decision.
There's some legal precedent to support the idea that restricting access ina primary is fine, at least Constitutionally, in the US. California Democratic Party v. Jones, for example. (Although I know this is about a blanket primary not a semi-opened one.) The court's decision, though, did defend that the parties do have the right to association under the 1st Amendment. So, I don't see a legal issue with restricting a primary to party members only.
Also, I really, really don't care about this issue at all, to be honest. We'll never have to hear about it again after Bernie goes back to Vermont. None of this matters because he's lost every type of primary you can imagine anyway.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They often do - Clinton stumped for Obama; Bradley stumped for Gore once or twice, and Chris Christie is already stumping for Trump.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What about Dukkakis and Bob Dole?
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Obama can do that in his sleep, and frankly the entire bench can. His real mission is pitching Hillary herself. He's going to sell her as a leader and a diplomat and a commander in chief.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked