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.

 

Californians approve Open Primaries

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
articles.latimes.com...


California voters went to the polls Tuesday and recast future elections in the state by passing a ballot measure that creates open primaries, one of five propositions on the ballot.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the open-primary measure, called its passage a "historic change" that "sends a clear message that Californians are tired of partisan gridlock and dysfunction."


This is an incredible win for democracy. California has had a long stance in favor of democracy, they support referendums and perform them alot. Now an open primary will definitly end the undemocratic process that occurs in our country. Just one more step to Proportional Representation.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I don't exactly see how having a closed primary is undemocratic. The purpose of a primary is for a party to choose who is going to represent it in an election. Why should people that aren't in a party choose who is going to represent the other party (i.e., why should a Republican be able to choose who is going to represent the Democrats, and vice-versa)? It would seem to me that if you want to vote in the Democratic primary, for instance, you should be a Democrat; it's not like it is difficult to change your registration anyway.

Arnie is right though. Having open primaries is definitely going to end "partisan gridlock and dysfunction" in California, simply because now the Democrats will be able to overrun the Republicans in their own primaries and choose the Republican that sounds just like the Democrats. All the politicians will be of the same mind, just with different letters after their names, for the time being.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I didn't say it is undemocratic in its' current form, I just simply meant that this is more democratic. It opens up the field. Let's just say you are a Republican and you really supported a Democrat in the Democratic primaries, you aren't allowed to vote for who you want. And it forces two competitors against each other whom might not have garnered both the first and second number of votes.

Let's say Dem. 1 wins 1,000,000 votes while Rep. 1 wins 500,000 then Dem. 2 wins 600,000 votes. How is it not fair that the person with the second highest vote is not on the ballot against number one?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



I just simply meant that this is more democratic.

I'm going to have to humbly disagree with you. I don't think it's very democratic when the election for a parties nomination could easily be influenced by people that aren't members of the party.


Let's just say you are a Republican and you really supported a Democrat in the Democratic primaries, you aren't allowed to vote for who you want. And it forces two competitors against each other whom might not have garnered both the first and second number of votes.

You could always switch parties if you want to vote for the Democrat that bad...I'm just sayin'.

The way I remember it, in the states that do have open primaries, you're only allowed to vote in one of them. You would tell the people at the polling place which primary you were voting in and that was final. You couldn't double dip.


Let's say Dem. 1 wins 1,000,000 votes while Rep. 1 wins 500,000 then Dem. 2 wins 600,000 votes. How is it not fair that the person with the second highest vote is not on the ballot against number one?

That second person can be. For example, just recently there were two Democrats on the ballot in Hawai'i's first Congressional district. They may just not be able to have a D after their name on the ballot.

The issue of it being fair or not is a moot point though since these are primary elections where a party is choosing it's nominee that are being spoken of.

ETA: If the runner-up, in your example, for the Democratic nomination got more votes than the Republican, great. The purpose of the primary election though isn't for office. It is for the parties to choose their nominee. I just think it's a bit dangerous to have the possibility for people not in the party to choose that parties nominee.

I see that you're just a smigen to the left
. So, let us say that for the Democratic nomination, there is a guy that you, and other democrats really, really support and is projected to win the nomination, and most likely the general election for whatever the election is for. Now, let's say you live in a state that allows open primaries. How would you feel if come the primary election day, tons of Republicans flooded the Democratic primary and voted in droves for someone that the Democrats didn't want to choose, who ultimately stole the nomination?

[edit on 6/10/2010 by octotom]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I don't get it. If this is about allowing registered Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and visa versa then why don't people simply register as Independents? That way you can vote in whatever primary you want. Hell, given the entirely fubar'd state of poltics and government in this country everyone SHOULD be registered as Independent. If you're not, in my opinion you're part of the problem.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
articles.latimes.com...


California voters went to the polls Tuesday and recast future elections in the state by passing a ballot measure that creates open primaries, one of five propositions on the ballot.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the open-primary measure, called its passage a "historic change" that "sends a clear message that Californians are tired of partisan gridlock and dysfunction."


This is an incredible win for democracy. California has had a long stance in favor of democracy, they support referendums and perform them alot. Now an open primary will definitly end the undemocratic process that occurs in our country. Just one more step to Proportional Representation.


Haven't you learned anything yet.

If the politicians and special interest groups are in favor of it, you should be against it. I've heard dozens of radio ads recently in favor of this legislation, and none opposing it. That means the special interest groups WANT this bill.

Let me tell you why the special interest groups pushed through open primaries:

Example -

A neo-con republican and a constitutional republican are running against each other.

Since democrats can now vote in the republican primary, the neo-con will ALWAYS WIN no matter what.

No matter who runs in CA now, it will always be the guy that supports more government that wins.

Always.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 



That way you can vote in whatever primary you want.

Not quite. That's only the case in states that allow open primaries. For example, in Florida, where I'm from, Independents can't vote in any primary because the primaries are closed.


Hell, given the entirely fubar'd state of poltics and government in this country everyone SHOULD be registered as Independent.

Since moving to Germany, and seeing that the vast majority of voters aren't actually a part of any party (those that are in a party are really into politics), I've wondered why in America we can simply register to be a Republican, Democrat, or whatever. I don't understand the point behind it. I mean, back in Florida, I'm a registered Republican, but I don't donate money or campaign for people or anything. It seems rather pointless actually.

So, in a sense, I agree with you: Everyone, I feel, shouldn't even register in a party unless you're going to actually get involved, otherwise it's just silly. I won't go as far as to say that those who are registered in a party though are part of the problem, considering that many people who are "in" a party are so in name only.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I think you said it well. Now, in California, things are going to just be crazy. Since the state is majority Democrat (thanks to the cities), it will be hard for the Republican party to put forth a nominee who can mount a challenge because the Democrat voters could nominate a weak Republican in the primary.

It will be interesting [sad] to see though want a state looks like that is entirely one "color" though.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


wait.. so the republicans cant vote too?
wrong.

it levels the playing field.
Politicians and MSM have conditioned us to accept "political leaders" who make decisions for us (even GWB called himself the "Decider").
well he wasn't.. and they aren't.
Elected officials are representatives of the will of the people.
they are not elected to make decisions for us, they are elected to represent the greater will of the people who elected them.

Voters need to take back this country and hold accountable any politician that goes against the majority will of the people he represents.

Leaders my eye.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by Bad Ninja]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Bad Ninja]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Bad Ninja
 



wait.. so the republicans cant vote too?
wrong.

Heh? What are you talking about? Of course now the Republicans will be able to vote in the Democratic primaries. This doesn't level the playing field. There are more Democrats in California and they would easily be able to tip the Republican nomination. If the Democrats wanted to, they could nominate who they wanted to the Republican nomination as opposed to who the Republicans want.

It is insane to me that people think that Democrats should be able to vote in a Republican primary, and vice-versa. If you're in a party and want to vote to nominate someone else in the other party, you should [b[join that party.

ETA:

Voters need to take back this country and hold accountable any politician that goes against the majority will of the people he represents.

The primaries aren't about choosing someone to represent your interests. The purpose is to choose who will be a party's nominee in an election. That's it. Like I said, if you're a Republican and upset that you can't vote for who is going to be the Democrats nominee in an election, you should just become a Democrat.

[edit on 6/10/2010 by octotom]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
End the tyranny of party affiliated treachery.

Thank You California, land of my birth.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Perhaps, I am not reading this right.

My understanding is there is one primary ballet that every candidate is on and everyone has one vote to place on the candidate of their choosing.

The top two candidates get put on the ballet on election day that again everyone gets one vote for the candidate of their choosing.

So if the Dems have 5 candidates and the Reps have 2 candidates and there is 5 independents (12 candidates total) and everyone has one vote, it would appear this would level the playing field.

Am I missing something? Seems like a better system to me but I am open minded to others input.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join