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.

 

Why Do NY Taxpayers Pay For The Rupublican Primaries? But Then Can't Vote?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
www.rocklandcountytimes.com...


In many states, any registered voter has the right to vote in any primary, regardless of party affiliation. New York has it all wrong, limiting voters in a party’s primary to members only.

This, also, is unfair to taxpayers, especially those registered to vote. It’s taxation without representation all over again, and even worse, it just serves to keep the incumbent in office.


I wasn't aware of this.

Taxpayers pay for these shams of primaries?

And if so, why are they not allowing every taxpayer to cast their "vote"?

Seriously, this is the first year I've ever really payed attention to primaries, so if anyone can clarify this for me, I would be more than grateful.

This just sounds absurd... (which most areas of politics are...)




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Did it bother you when NY state tax dollars were used to pay for the dem primaries and repubs couldn't vote? How about residents of the state who are not registered to either party, they don't get to vote in any of the primaries?

Point is, it's part of the process and gives the state members of the respectve party a voice in who represents their party in the next election. That is not an issue IMO.

Besides, what valid reason would a registered member of the opposite party have for voting in a primary other than to vote for a canidate who they think wouldn't beat their own canidate?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynn112
Did it bother you when NY state tax dollars were used to pay for the dem primaries and repubs couldn't vote? How about residents of the state who are not registered to either party, they don't get to vote in any of the primaries?

Point is, it's part of the process and gives the state members of the respectve party a voice in who represents their party in the next election. That is not an issue IMO.

Besides, what valid reason would a registered member of the opposite party have for voting in a primary other than to vote for a canidate who they think wouldn't beat their own canidate?


I am not a Dem vs Repub American. I could care less what either party did.

I am all for getting rid of this two-party popularity contest altogether...

When you say, "Did it bother you when NY state tax dollars were used to pay for the dem primaries and repubs couldn't vote? How about residents of the state who are not registered to either party, they don't get to vote in any of the primaries?"

HELL YES it bothers me.

Why should an Independent pay for a Republican, or a Dem pay for an Independent?

Why the hell should I, someone that doesn't support ANY party, have to pay for ANY of them?

NO, it ISN'T "just part of the process"... nothing in the Constitution says anything about a primary, and actually, doesn't say any about political parties in general.

Now stop acting condescending...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I think a lot of states have these- they are called closed primaries. Also, each party puts a lot of money into the primaries as well.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Why is Obama using US tax dollars to fund his re election campaign?
Why do you think he called it stimulus?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Why did taxpayer dollars go to liberal Democrats primaries eh?

No matter where i look seems they always want to stack the deck in their favor.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join