Open primary elections (where all voters are free to participate and vote for any candidate regardless of party): good idea or invitation to cross-party election tampering? (UserQ)
...simply because each was a different party (while one was independent). That's wrong. We are in fact voting for a single person--in every state. But some primaries are set up on the wish for the same kind of single-party rule we have seen over and over in fascist and communist nations. Dangerous.
In my state and county I was only able to vote for 3 people if I chose to vote on the Independent card, 1 person on the Green Party card, 14 on the GOP card, and 8 on the Democrats. Basically, I could not vote for my favorites for county commissioner, senate, sheriff, or president simultaneously...
He was @ the store one day, and has not bee heard from since.
I miss Jamal
I think a moderate president and more moderate congressmen would mean more Americans getting the America that they want.
having a moderate every time is not a bad thing. How much of the American public is hard-line Republican or Democrat? The majority of us are mostly moderate and have a few issues close to our hearts that we are staunchly on one side or the other on.
If a primary was open to everyone, then we'd never have a truly liberal or conservative president again. Itd be nothing but moderates getting the nominee for good. There's no way dems would vote for a more conservative candidate in the primary, and vice versa. Keep it in the party.
there you go again GOPers, getting it wrong. of course, to be fair if there were a GOP pres and DNCers were having a primary, I'm pretty sure those results would be reversed.
Isn't freedom of religion also supposed to be freedom from religion?
Hey. Look here. It's HolyBabble on THIS thread name-calling. I'm shocked and amazed. What a surprise! I love the people who wear their religion on their sleeves, but they are TOTAL hypocrites. God WANTS you to put others down and call them names because YOU are better and smarter than them, right?
I think that it is an important part of democracy and, while I'm sure such tampering occurs, I doubt that it is extremely widespread
@kletch- All good except for the early voting. I work offshore & if I can't vote on voting day- then I'm glad I can vote before going to work & my vote gets counted.
@wetheslave- I will not submit to anyone forcing the change of my country due to their position (something today's politicians seem to as a matter or THEIR choice) the is America & we will vote on it. This president seems to think he can take away my vote- NO! I will NOT submit to any politician.
Unless this is part of the master plan. Then I will submit to my new master.
It would be nice if politicians would listen more and talk less. There are a variety of Artificial intelligence divisions to try to do this. All things can be used for good or bad.
It would also be nice if politicians could work collaboratively instead of alliances that incapacitate.
When you are in charge, you want to control things to keep everyone calm and compliant. This includes control of information and many systems. This is human nature. I have witnesses this first hand.
America is diverse and complex. How do we keep them compliant?
Romney supporters where in charge of the polling locations for all three uncounted counties.
Therefore, we have our "winner"... by a hundred and some odd votes.
The entire shabang is rigged for failure towards the people it was designed to prosper for.
Oh and Diebold, don't even get started.
The three Maine counties that weren't counted (fraud) had initially reported a Ron Paul win.
It's all over the Internet and it's been happening this way since Iowa. Maddow just reported on it in an interview with Wead. Has it slowed down the fuckery?
Not a one single mph.
I'll be voting for the man, not a party.
The man who makes the most sense, has the best understanding of why it's broken so that his tools are better equipped to repair. I care not to cast my vote into a broken system that clearly has no intention of being rectified or rehabilitated.
Ron Paul, 12
So, all qualified voters SHOULDN'T vote as they please?
Maybe I'm not getting it.
I HAVE to belong to and vote for a party, EVEN if I don't identify fully?
If people shouldn't vote for whomever they please, why vote? Fraud is clearly evident in our current race where EVERY state has been party 2 it
By party. The dens would vote for the biggot jerk. then a dem would win.
babbler, pleeeeease shut up.
theoretically bad because of cross party tampering but I have known people register in the other party to influence their primary, so I would say it doesn't really matter.
The open primary system is how the Republicans get stuck with a McCain or a Romney. At least the democrats have the sense to keep Republicans out of their primaries.
The filters would be reversed if it were a democratic primary.
1. Voting within a party is fine the way it is.
2. For the primary and caucus, campaigning time being currently sufficient, all states should the polls open and close at the same time.
3. No early voting.
The filter results are pretty much exactly what I expected.
RonPaul-12 - um if the majority were "meant" to rule there would never have been an electoral college ... our government is set up to protect the minority from the majority
I can tell you that even though I typically vote democrat, I do not vote for the worst Repub. in the primary just for spite. That's idiotic. I vote for the person I can most stomach so that if my guy loses the election, I don't lose much and some of my ideals are still upheld.
In Texas voting in the primary registers you for that party, but only for the remainder of that year. so, if I vote in the republican primary in April then I'm a registered republican until Dec 31, 2012. then I'm unaffiliated again.
Once again I feel lucky to live in my state. I had no idea, until the question, that in other states people that had to vote in the primary of the party they are registered for.
lol party filter :) Republicans afraid of losing?
51% still say good?
Seriously, you people are absolute morons.
Alexander- Ben Franklin didn't say that. at least there is no record of him saying or writing it and the word "lunch" did not exist in his time. It's a nice phrase, but it is an internet myth that Franklin said it.
As it stands now, I can't vote in the primaries for anything other than non-partisan races and ballot measures unless I affiliate myself with a party. I'd love an open primary, or at least one that's open to those who are not registered with one of the parties.
We are a republic, not a democracy.
Ron, if we switched to popular vote then Ron paul would never win... Also do research the EC is needed.
Thank you and good night. (bows)
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you vote simply because someone says they are R or D. Then you are missing the point of having a choice. Screw that. And you.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
We are a representative democracy.
Oh and Ron Paul, 2012!
Whoever is pro democracy (Ron Paul 12) is for mob rule.
RonPaul-12: you are the god of this app
Essentially you're saying return to a popular vote and bypass the electoral? I'm ALL for it! The majority is meant to rule.
We shouldn't be voting for parties, but should instead be voting for the moral, integrity and past record of the person running. Supportpopularvote.org sign the petition!
Election tampering? And narrowing down a candidate based on partial voting is not? Let them all be on the ballot. Eliminate the 2 party system & people who solely base their vote on which party a particular candidate aligns him/herself with. Screw the high school popularity contest we call politics.
Wlittle@ I hope your saying that because democrats would vote for Romney because Romney is a democrat.
Bad idea from the word go.
So democrats can vote in the republican primary and still select a republican?