Whine, Whine, Whine, want a little cheese?

[Cheyenne]

As I understand it, if I had only voted for Republican candidates on my ballot, never crossing party lines, then I automatically became a registered Republican and my vote would have counted.

But, effectively Cheyenne, our ballots were immediately nullifed if we crossed party lines. They became nothing more than window dressing.

Is the part about the ballot counting if you voted only Republican still true based on your research? Even if you were't registered ahead of time? If the ballots were coded somehow, wouldn't you have to tell the nice older people at the voting location that you wanted one that was coded Republican for your vote to count?

Still sounds like a court case just waiting to happen to me. Where are all the lawyers when you really need them?

 

[Samuari]

why?

Why should peaple who are not members of a party deside on who that party should nominate? It's like havin' the Babists elect the pope. I mean, realy. If you care about who is nominated, then care enough to regester in the party, care enough to go to precinct meetings, county caucases, state conventions, and tell 'em what you think. Find a candidate that is at least willing to listen, and then work for her, lick a few envelopes, knock on yer neighbors doors, have him over for tea to meet yer freinds. But don't complain that your vote doesn't count when it shouldn't. If you don't want to join the party, why should you have a say in who carries its banner? Get real.

 

[Samuari]

got distracted

Sorry, to answer the question, YES, I voted for Mc Cain.

 

[Magic Merlin]

Is the part about the ballot counting if you voted only Republican still true based on your research? Even if you were't registered ahead of time? If the ballots were coded somehow, wouldn't you have to tell the nice older people at the voting location that you wanted one that was coded Republican for your vote to count?

Those are good questons Cheyenne. The ballot I received listed me as non-partisan, i.e., I didn't declare any party affiliation, therefore my vote counted only as window dressing as far as the primary election was concerned. The people at the voting precinct give each voter the ballot that correspond to the party affiliation nest to their name. Asking for a ballot enoded as a registered republican would not have worked, as I am not registered as such.

What this says to me is that the two major parties in America are actually very afraid of letting the people decide for themselves who they want to run for office. The republicans were obviously scared shitless early this year, when they thought their golden boy, GW, was not going to make it against John McCain. They did everything possible to make it difficult, if not impossible to win.

Hell, the republican party even took John McCain to court in New York to try and prevent him from having his name placed on the New York primary ballot. I mean, is the republican party really that afraid that their chosen one, GW, could not withstand a challenge from McCain. This political season has been the epitomy of everything that is wrong in American politics these days. I mean, my fucking god, we now have to chose between Bush and Gore......How sad is that?

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: why?

Why should peaple who are not members of a party deside on who that party should nominate? If you don't want to join the party, why should you have a say in who carries its banner?

What if you are truly not 100% of the time Republican or Democrat, and you want to vote in the primary based on the best of ALL candidates, no matter which party the person belongs to? Seems like under California's rules, you'd have to make an extra trip before every election to register as a member of your favorite candidate's party. I agree with Merlin, that is just silly.

 

[Dudley]

Lawyer, Somebody Need a Lawyer?

Cheyenne, here's a surprise, the lawyer from Chicago chimes in on elections...

According to my research (god, I love saying that) CA actually has a bifurcated system with different rules for state and presidential primaries. The FEC designates the CA Presidential primary as a "closed" primary, with the following footnote: "In the Presidential primary, Democratic and Republican voters receive color-coded ballots; only ballots of party voters are counted for purposes of delegate selection."

The state primary is designated as a "blanket" primary, which is the true free-for-all often thought of as an "open" primary, where anybody can vote for anybody.

There are two questions here. First, does the CA primary election fulfill the wish of the voters as expressed in the referendum? Since I don't know exactly what the question was, I can't offer an opinion.

Second, is this the right way to conduct an election? Opinions will obviously differ, but here's mine.

A lot of people are confused about the purpose of primary elections. They are in fact party elections, wherein the members of a political party vote to nominate their party's candidate to stand in the general election. Therefore, it stands to reason that if you're not a member of the party, you don't get to pick the candidate, or the delegates, in the case of Presidential nominations.

When I was a committeeman back in PA, I remember many an irate registered Independent or NP (No Party) who demanded to vote in a primary, when they actually had nobody to vote for. Here in the great flat state, we have an open primary, in which the voter publicly declares at the polls that he or she is a member of one party for purposes of that election only and is given that party's ballot to vote.

I can understand Magic Merlin's frustration with the system, but it doesn't really sound as if CA's approach is all that unreasonable. They get to have a free-for-all primary with their state candidates, but have to play by similar rules as the rest of the states when it comes to the national election. What more can you ask for?

Sorry for the treatise, but I love election law!

 

[Cheyenne]

Thanks, Dudley. I'm beginning to think "FIB" is a misnomer.

 

[Magic Merlin]

Dudley, you make a very good point.

While I personally do favor open primaries, if I know the primary is closed, I don't have to like it, but at least then I know the rules. And then I can play by the rules.

What frustrates me and many other Californians is that the voters of this state passed a proposition in 1998 in favor of 'open primaries'. And according to the California constitution, a proposition that is passed by the voters becomes law. A law that not even the state legislature can overturn. The only way a proposition that has become a law in California can be overturned is for it to be superseded by another successful proposition, or overturned by a court of law.

Well, the two major political parties here did take this law to court. All the way to our supreme court which upheld it as constitutional. Now perhaps your are right Dudley, when you say that Federal law supersedes California law where it concerns the presidential candidates. But then why is that not pointed out to the public. This is something that only came out a few weeks before the election, and every republican party boss in the state and country was running around out here claiming how unfair our primary was.

What I want is an honest election. I want to know what rules I have to play by.

Perhaps its just our whole political system and the way it is run and controlled by the two major parties. Some people call an open primary a free for all. To me, it is a way of the major parties to control who can and cannot run for political office in this country.

 

[Dudley]

One Last Word...

Cheyenne, thank you. There are a few of us, I hope. BTW, I crossed the Cheddar Curtain today. It was lovely in Lake Geneva...

MM, if the situation with primaries wasn't made clear to the voters, that's the fault of your state Board of Elections. It may have been that the legal fight carried on so late that it made it difficult to communicate.

If you want a truly open primary system, the only way to have one is for elections to be non-partisan. As long as political parties exist, they will have the right to conduct primaries to choose their candidates.

Personally, I was very amused by watching the Republicans run scared of John McCain. They did everything but kneecap the guy to make sure he didn't get in Shrub's way.

Oh, and to answer the original question, I did vote in the primary...for Bill Bradley.

 

[Magic Merlin]

Dudley, thank you for the explanation. I may not agree with the law, but at least I

now understand the situation. You are a scholar and a gentleman.

Personally, I was very amused by watching the Republicans run scared of John McCain. They did everything but kneecap the guy to make sure he didn't get in Shrub's way.

Oh, and to answer the original question, I did vote in the primary...for Bill Bradley.

Amen to that! McCain certainly did scare the shit out them.

And Bradley versus McCain would have been an election I would have loved to see.

 

[Cheyenne]

Re: One Last Word...

Cheyenne, thank you. There are a few of us, I hope. BTW, I crossed the Cheddar Curtain today. It was lovely in Lake Geneva...

The only place with more FIBs than Door County is Lake Geneva. You probably didn't see many real Wisconsinites on your visit! But you answered the election questions, so I have to forgive your taste in stomping grounds.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I think Dudley and Samuari are right about this one. The purpose of a closed primary election is to allow the members of each party to choose which candidate from their party will represent them in the subsequent general election. Logically then, wouldn't it be unreasonable for a non-member of a party to expect to be able to cast a vote in that party's election?

Samuari's analogy about this was a great one: Should Baptists get upset when they're not given input into the selection of a Pope? As Cheyenne mentioned, there are dangers in open primaries in which voters are allowed to vote for opposition party candidates. The candidate favored by the members of party A may be "sabotaged" by voters of party B by party B voters voting for a lesser-qualified party A candidate in an attempt to improve the Party B candidate's chances to win the general election.

Convoluted enough for you? An hypothetical example makes it easier: In an open primary, Democratic and independent opponents of George W. Bush could have cast their ballots for John McCain in an attempt to nominate a Republican candidate that Al Gore would have a better chance of beating.

That being said, the California primary seems to have had "open" voting, but "closed" vote counting. If not outright fraudulent, it's certainly deceptive. If crossing party lines is allowed and independents are permitted to vote for party candidates, why shouldn't their votes count? Doesn't it make the act of voting an exercise in futility? At least in an ordinary closed election voters know where they stand. Their choices are limited, but they know their vote will count.

Even after reading the posts on this thread I still don't understand the circumstances leading up to and justifying this unusual primary. Maybe there's a good explanation for all this that escapes me.

This one is stumping me.

 

[Vlad]

Hell yeah, voted in the primaries, try to take part in the democratic process as often as possible--

 

[GuyJD]

THIS TRULY SUCKS!!

You can bet your sweet ass that I went out and exercised my right to vote. But what for? I voted for Ross Perot and damn it he didn't even come near the top primary.

 

[Bigdog]

There seems to be a bit of confusion about the election process in California. While we did pass a law providing an open primary (actually a blanket primary), the delegates for each party are chosen by rules set by the parties not the state. The Democratic delegates are selected using a proportional system, while the Republicans use a winner-take-all system. Both parties have chosen NOT to count voter percentages from other parties. So as a Democrat in California I have the right by law to vote for any party candidate but if I vote Republican the Republican party doesn't have to recognize my vote for the purpose of selecting convention candidates.

Confused yet? Try http://www.thegreenpapers.com for some good info on definitions of primaries.

An open primary does allow your non-party vote to count in races other than President, so it isn't all bad.

 

[sato]

Is it the voter that counts or the counter of votes?

 

[Samuari]

Re: Re: why?

Why should peaple who are not members of a party deside on who that party should nominate? If you don't want to join the party, why should you have a say in who carries its banner?

What if you are truly not 100% of the time Republican or Democrat, and you want to vote in the primary based on the best of ALL candidates, no matter which party the person belongs to? Seems like under California's rules, you'd have to make an extra trip before every election to register as a member of your favorite candidate's party. I agree with Merlin, that is just silly.

The whole reason for aprimary is to nominate a canidate for THAT party, not to elect the person to fill the position. For better or worse, we have developed a system that restricts our choices progresivly. Perhaps we have outgrown the party system, but that is a discusion for another bridge to cross before burning. As long as we are using the system that we have, what is wrong with requiring some minimal qualificaitions. If you open it up where do stop? Our Candian and Mexican friends have a stake in what our elections deside, why don't they get to vote? Are we going to restrict Chinese participation to money contributions? Think about it, where else would you ask the public at large to select the folks that are realy the officers of a privite group?

 

[Cheyenne]

Let me use your analogy

Think about it, where else would you ask the public at large to select the folks that are realy the officers of a privite group? [/B]

I don't disagree with the concept of it being a private group. It is the membership requirements of the group that I think should be better defined. If I walk up to the polls and declare myself to be Republican, I should be able to vote Republican. If I walk up and declare myself to be Democrat, I should be able to vote Democrat. It would be the same as a Baptist CHANGING to become Catholic. The whole baptist church wouldn't elect the new pope (ie the Democratic party picking the Republican candidate). But the Baptist converted to Catholic should have the same right as any other longer term Catholic (ie individual Democrat changing status to become Republican). I know, bad analogy since the pope isn't voted in my members exactly, but I wanted to continue the original example given to me. And if the new Republican/Catholic wants to switch back to being Democrat/Baptist at some point down the road, no problem! Freedon of choice, I believe that would be.

As for people from other countries voting in our election, that would be silly. The analogy there is having an athiest help select the new pope. The athiest wouldn't meet the very basic membership requirement of first being a Christian (or a US citizen in the voting analogy).

 

[Samuari]

Re: Let me use your analogy

Think about it, where else would you ask the public at large to select the folks that are realy the officers of a privite group?

I don't disagree with the concept of it being a private group. It is the membership requirements of the group that I think should be better defined. If I walk up to the polls and declare myself to be Republican, I should be able to vote Republican. If I walk up and declare myself to be Democrat, I should be able to vote Democrat. It would be the same as a Baptist CHANGING to become Catholic.
As for people from other countries voting in our election, that would be silly. The analogy there is having an athiest help select the new pope [/B]

Ahh we begin to see that we need to define the group a little better. Why should you be able to deside at the moment of voting, and switch at any whim, which party you belong to? What keeps this a privite group? that we dn't like a particular politican? Hopefully it is that we as a group belive in certin ideas: Repubs that we have more than enough government in our lives, and we need to limit it.
Demos seem to want govweerment every where

The point my smooth morsal is to get off the dime and make a choice. Who do you trust with your personal liberty? and go do what you can to elect 'em. (the election night parties are wonderful).