What if a political party decided black people or women couldn't vote in their primary?

[ddeclue]

Some argue that the existing primary system is OK because it should be up to the individual parties to make up whatever arbitrary rules suit them.

Well I say discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

The rules should NOT be left up to the parties - it's too important to let them make up arbitrary rules that disenfranchise people.

Currently the rules of either party don't officially disenfranchise by race or sex but they certainly DO disenfranchise by geographical region. Why should I as a Floridian not be allowed to choose from the ENTIRE slate of candidates available to an Iowan or New Hampshirite? There is no way to say that I have no right to make the same choice THEY do without claiming an inherent right to discriminate against me and my fellow Floridians. The only way to allow this is to claim that a Floridian's vote is less important than an Iowan's.

All voters should have an equal say in the process and small states voters already get a disproportionately large say in picking the President through the Electoral College which guarantees them three votes no matter how small their state is. Alaska has fewer people than metro Orlando but is automatically guaranteed 3 electoral votes by the Constitution. Meanwhile the people of Orlando are getting maybe 1.6 of Florida's 27 electoral votes.

Everybody's vote should be equal and in a fair world there would be no electoral college either.

There should be one Primary day just like there is one General day.

Would it NOT cause a huge uproar if each state decided and announced its General Presidential results on a variety of days across a six month period and this order was "decided" for us by politicians in smoke filled back rooms somewhere? Would this not disenfranchise people geographically? People already complain on the west coast and in states which split time zones like Florida and Tennessee that it disenfranchises the western portion of their state.

NO - there should be one primary day and one general day nation wide. I don't mind if there is early or absentee voting ahead of that day for a month but the results should NOT be announced except on that one day.

Doug D.
Orlando

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. I agree with you 100%

...but enjoy your upcoming argument with MadFloridian ;-)

[ddeclue]

2. It's OK.. he and I are both from Florida and we have a state license to fight..

:rofl:

[Cynical Guy]

3. Drool. One primary day. All the baloney news coverage, gone.

And have it early so none of the ridiculous money expenditures can torpedo a good candidate.

[ddeclue]

4. EXACTLY! You get it... a lot of people don't

:bounce:

[gratuitous]

5. Hanh?

Where would I go to register as a black person or a woman?

You want to vote in a primary? Join a political party, and vote for your choice of candidate on their slate of candidates. Don't like any of the current parties? Start your own and get a place on the primary ballot.

[ddeclue]

6. Nope... I already belong to a political party and vote in my primary

you don't have any right to tell me tough shit like it or leave it. The parties don't have any moral right to discriminate geographically any more than they do racially or sexually. One person one vote. PERIOD. END. OF. STORY.

Doug D.

[gratuitous]

11. And that's what the general election is for

You want to help a party pick its nominee, you need to belong to the party. Why should registered Republicans get to pick the Democratic nominee, or vice versa? Your premise makes very little sense, your conclusion makes even less.

[Toucano]

7. No thank you.

I like the process. I think it prepares the candidate well for the general election and to govern.

I am not fond of caucuses, however. I would rather everything be secret ballot.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. The argument against it is that it introduces the same problem with the general election

Which is that certain states get an inordinate amount of attention while the rest of the country is ignored. Not saying you're wrong, but that's the argument. Also, would there be an electoral college system as with the general, or would it be purely popular vote? That would be another interesting wrinkle. I've thought about this a lot, after the bloody 2008 primary. I've pondered the ramifications of caucuses in every state vs. primaries in every state. How would that work? With a one-day election would we end up with primaries where Dem candidates spent most of their time in the most populous Blue states and Reps spent most of theirs in the most populous Red ones? :shrug:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. That's what Ron Paul wants.

He thinks we should go back to the original constitution -- which means that only real-estate owning white males over 21 could vote. Fuck that.

[JeffR]

10. Hmm.What if a political party decided up was down?

That would be a danger to the Republic, I think. Thank God is will never happen, of course...

[Romulox]

12. The Democratic primary is designed to select the "Centrist". That won't change. nt

[960]

13. If a party so mis-treats a group, why not have it out there so that those

folks can join another party (or be self loathing idiots)?