An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
California Court of Appeals says no to Proposition 14 opponents, which is (more) good news for independent voters. From CAIVN: “The Court rejected the CSEA language, preserved the lower court’s language, and ordered the restoration of the Legislative Analyst’s prediction of cost savings associated with the measure.” And open primaries gaining support in Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Editorial: Bay Area News Group urges voters to reject Proposition 15 (MediaNews editorial, Tri Valley Herald) Prop. 15 conflicts with a far more promising campaign reform measure, Prop. 14, which eliminates closed primaries. Prop. 14 would establish an open primary, with the top two vote-getters going on to the general election. The Prop. 15 grant formulas would fall apart if, as we hope, Prop. 14 passes.
OPEN PRIMARIES
PA: Are we getting the best candidates? (By: Ernie Rosato, Landsdale Reporter – PA) As a libertarian/constitutionalist at heart, and with utter disdain for the socialist progressive values that the Democratic Party has endorsed, I have been forced to side with the Republican Party for more than 30 years because this commonwealth does not recognize the independent voter.
Also see Independent Pennsylvanians for a progressive independent view of the fight for open primaries in PA
If you think yourself to damn good to be a member of the club, why exactly should you get to vote for the leadership of the club… You don't want to be a Democrat or a Republican, don't be one, and then butt out of the party's business…
Actually, this is really about who goes on the ballot (for example, should we have a Democrat and a Republican, two Democrats, two Republicans, etc.). The parties should, in fact, be able to have whatever leadership they want. But when it comes to how the elections are run, it a matter for all of us…
From the last time this came up, another solution was worked out: dominate and die. If there's only one or two parties in power, their primaries become open. Smaller parties get more control of their primaries. Would that work?
But when it comes to how the elections are run, it a matter for all of us…
If you want to vote in a Democratic Primary, become a Democrat and if you want to vote in a Republican Primary, become a Republican… If you think you are too good to be a member of Party, then you get to stay home on primary day… Primaries are for parties to select their candidates, not for people who were to good to join to select candidates for parties they are not member of…
“If you want to vote in a Democratic Primary, become a Democrat and if you want to vote in a Republican Primary, become a Republican… If you think you are too good to be a member of Party, then you get to stay home on primary day… Primaries are for parties to select their candidates, not for people who were to good to join to select candidates for parties they are not member of…”
I'll say again, that's fine. At least until the parties then demand that the government put those people (and only those people) on the ballot.
The government can hold whatever election they want to determine who gets on the ballot. (We could change the name from “primaries” to something else if you want). If the parties want to hold a different election to (on their own dime) to determine who they officially endorse, lets speak at their conventions, give money etc. they are free.
I would like to go to ranked voting, but this good news also…
If you think yourself to damn good to be a member of the club, why exactly should you get to vote for the leadership of the club… You don't want to be a Democrat or a Republican, don't be one, and then butt out of the party's business…
Actually, this is really about who goes on the ballot (for example, should we have a Democrat and a Republican, two Democrats, two Republicans, etc.). The parties should, in fact, be able to have whatever leadership they want. But when it comes to how the elections are run, it a matter for all of us…
From the last time this came up, another solution was worked out: dominate and die. If there's only one or two parties in power, their primaries become open. Smaller parties get more control of their primaries. Would that work?
If you want to vote in a Democratic Primary, become a Democrat and if you want to vote in a Republican Primary, become a Republican… If you think you are too good to be a member of Party, then you get to stay home on primary day… Primaries are for parties to select their candidates, not for people who were to good to join to select candidates for parties they are not member of…
Not sure what you are advocating. So only have open primaries for the main parties?
“If you want to vote in a Democratic Primary, become a Democrat and if you want to vote in a Republican Primary, become a Republican… If you think you are too good to be a member of Party, then you get to stay home on primary day… Primaries are for parties to select their candidates, not for people who were to good to join to select candidates for parties they are not member of…”
I'll say again, that's fine. At least until the parties then demand that the government put those people (and only those people) on the ballot.
The government can hold whatever election they want to determine who gets on the ballot. (We could change the name from “primaries” to something else if you want). If the parties want to hold a different election to (on their own dime) to determine who they officially endorse, lets speak at their conventions, give money etc. they are free.
Basically. And even then, they get to close them again when more parties get in power.