I wouldn’t call limiting primary voters to party members to be anti-democratic so long as anyone can register for any party at any point before the election.
I don’t think you should use words if you don’t understand what they mean.
It is perfectly fine for parties to decide who represents their party through a vote of party members. Up until the mid 1960s the party leaders chose the candidates outright and oddly we had a more representative legislature as a result.
Your not wrong, the issue is not about how the republicans internally choose their candidate, its about not giving them any legal ground to limit other parties options to do things how they choose.
If they win this case and the democrats have an open primary anyway, it gives the republicans the chance to sue them mid-prinary, and make them waste money and time. This is Calvin Ball levels of rules manupulation and pettieness.
So you think that folks registered as independent get no say in the nominees? Everyone should have a say in who represents them regardless of any party affiliation. So in this situation you are either the boot on their neck or a bootlicker.
Everyone should get a say in who represents them and that is what the general election is for. Why should non-members decide who represents the party they haven’t joined? That’s just entitlement.
Again you shouldn’t use words you do not understand or know the meaning of.
I wouldn’t call limiting primary voters to party members to be anti-democratic so long as anyone can register for any party at any point before the election.
bootlicker
I don’t think you should use words if you don’t understand what they mean.
It is perfectly fine for parties to decide who represents their party through a vote of party members. Up until the mid 1960s the party leaders chose the candidates outright and oddly we had a more representative legislature as a result.
Your not wrong, the issue is not about how the republicans internally choose their candidate, its about not giving them any legal ground to limit other parties options to do things how they choose.
If they win this case and the democrats have an open primary anyway, it gives the republicans the chance to sue them mid-prinary, and make them waste money and time. This is Calvin Ball levels of rules manupulation and pettieness.
Political parties have no right to fucking exist at all, let alone restrict voting to their membership!
That goes double when they use public funds and government apparatus to administer said vote.
Under the 1st amendment right to assemble and free speech, political parties can legally exist.
So you think that folks registered as independent get no say in the nominees? Everyone should have a say in who represents them regardless of any party affiliation. So in this situation you are either the boot on their neck or a bootlicker.
In a closed primary system, Independents have two options:
Change their party registration so they can vote in the primary that most appeals to them.
Wait for the general and then vote.
The whole point of a closed primary is to keep out non-party members.
I’m well aware of the purpose, disenfranchising voters is one of Americas favorite pastimes.
Nobody is disenfranchised, Independents can have their own primary, and nobody is being prevented from voting in the general.
If Independents really want to have a say in who the Republican or Democratic candidate is, all they have to do is re-register. It’s free and easy.
Everyone should get a say in who represents them and that is what the general election is for. Why should non-members decide who represents the party they haven’t joined? That’s just entitlement.
Again you shouldn’t use words you do not understand or know the meaning of.
Removed by mod