It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virginia Defends Open Primaries

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Independent Move
The U.S should have open primaries in my honest opinion. Instead, both parties have made moves to try and inhibit people from even voting in the general elections unless registered as either a Republican or Democrat. While these proposed measures by the two major parties in this country have been unsuccessful, the fact that such measures have even been proposed reveals much about the current two party duopoly that currently exists in this country.




posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I like this move, I am a big proponent of open primaries. Having to choose between Douche and Turd all the time at the national level has left me only caring about local and state-level politics. If this became national we could finally see the false dichotomy of the two parties being different become fractured and exposed for the sham that it is.






edit on 11-2-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude once thought he had beer but it turned out to be Natty Ice.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I like this move, I am a big proponent of open primaries. Having to choose between Douche and Turd all the time at the national level has left me only caring about local and state-level politics. If this became national we could finally see the false dichotomy of the two parties being different become fractured and exposed for the sham that it is.





Sums up my feelings. I think there's genuine concern from the two major parties concerning the Independent vote. A couple of years ago, some of the party "directors" tried to make it mandatory for everyone to be registered as either a Republican or Democrat. Then research started being released stating that "Forty-two percent of the eligible voting population didn't consider itself neither Republican nor Democrat." Needless to say, talk of mandatory party registration got hushed pretty quickly after that.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I have never been nor ever will be a registered anything. I prefer to vote the candidate and issues instead of acting like a partisan asshat and just pulling the lever because I am a good little party toady.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Many seem to think that if you "lean" one direction or the other, you should register and identify with the party that "leans" that direction. That has always been the argument against more than two parties. I have had people ask me, "Why do you insist there should be 500 different parties? There's only two ways to lean. Why not go with the party that leans your direction?" On the surface, that seems reasonable. However, to an ACTUAL moderate, it's not that reasonable at all.
For example, I might lean to the right on government spending, but lean to the left on the environment. I don't lean one way on every single topic. So, if you are a traditional rightist or leftist, I guess the "no need for additional parties" arguments work for you, but if you're not a political traditionalist, it just doesn't cut muster.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I completely agree with you on that point, I find myself unable to align with either party's full platform's. Hell sometimes I cannot even agree with 50% of it.

On a side note, it's good to see you around again.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth
Other countries manage very well allowing parties to choose their own candidates in-house, and then choosing between the parties.
You still have the option of voting for other parties instead.

Think about it; the fighting of Primary elections is hideously expensive, is it not?
Therefore Primary elections can only be fought by people with lots of money to spend.
So the Primary system has the automatic effect of LIMITING prospective candidates; only the wealthy need apply.
If you really wanted to take big money out of politics, the best starting point would be to abandon the Primary system, let parties choose their own candidates, and thus give less wealthy people a chance to get on the ballot-paper.



edit on 11-2-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thank you... It has been a while. Heh.
See, that's the conundrum I fall into politically. To me, both parties are complicit in the current state of affairs of not only this country, but the world. I had a friend of mine tell me one time, "You know what gets me about people like you? There's an ever growing number of you too. What gets me is you rant and rave about how both parties are the 'same,' et cetera, about how there may be need of revolution, about never being satisfied about a damned thing that is done, but not once have I heard what anyone of you would do that the Republicans or Democrats haven't."
While I agree, the moderate side of the spectrum has a pretty poor track record of communicating what it thinks should be done, it's also apparent to me that the established left and right isn't anywhere prepared to listen anyway.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




Other countries manage very well allowing parties to choose their own candidates in-house, and then choosing between the parties. You still have the option of voting for other parties instead.


Closed primaries are in house. They allow their member to choose the candidate at a more democratic level.

If you wanted to toss up elections, add in some proportionality in general elections. increase district size and take top 3 in voting.
Or have everyone register to a party and have One of the houses fills itself proportional to that registration.

Also don't bring up cali's top 2 primary runoff system. That is a diversity of opinion destroyer.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Truthfully, what I see as a huge problem is who and what funds campaigns. I am all in favor of a citizen funded campaigns. Instead, they're funded by corporations, banks and billionaire moguls. Until that is changed, the citizenry isn't going to get proper representation, open primaries or anything else.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

I'd ban laywers from being politicians myself.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Politician, lawyer, corrupt by the very nature of their professions.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The purpose of a primary is to pick a candidate for the respective parties. If you are not a registered democrat or republican why should you be able to vote in a democratic or republican primary?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's all well and good. Then none of my tax money should go towards funding it. I don't identify with Republicans or Democrats. Parties should be funded by party affiliates, i.e their voter bloc.

edit on 11-2-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

It varies on state on how funding works. States are responsible for elections per the Constitution.



new topics




 
6

log in

join