Sorry to rain on your parade but the statement that Congress spends one year campaigning is a bit of a reach. In PART, they are ALWAYS campaigning (what politician is not?) but actual concerted campaigning effort is a couple/few months and not a full year.

And nobody said anything about the States voting for the actual leader, No way would Trump be able to run in a place like Canada. Not that I'm a Trump fan but if he is who the people want, he is who the people can actually get and not who the party wants despite the people.
That said, you can certainly use that same argument against us! You ensure you do not get a Trump, but again, is that fair?

danivon

I Don't think there is a "right way" to elect a party leader. Too democratic and you risk someone who can't work with their senior colleagues (Corbyn springs to mind). Too closed and you just get the insiders to the exclusion of wider views

Perhaps the final call comes after the election result. A winning candidate cements the status quo. A losing candidate and change is desirable... A big loser like Humphrey, McGovern or Goldwater and the change becomes dramatic.

If Trump is the disaster that everyone on the right fears....then the process will be under a microscope.


Tom

Sorry to rain on your parade but the statement that Congress spends one year campaigning is a bit of a reach. In PART, they are ALWAYS campaigning (what politician is not?) but actual concerted campaigning effort is a couple/few months and not a full year.

Its well documented that congressmen spend 3 to 5 hours a day, every day, just raising money.
That's part of the campaign process. And they start raising that money for the next election, as soon as they win the last...
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/ ... sing-money

Anyone considering a run at the Presidency needs to raise many millions of dollars..

so you agree they do not run for one solid year, thanks for the help!

oh,
and "if Trump is the disaster everyone on the right fears..."
I think you got that wrong.

Yes, many on the right fear him no doubt but it's a far cry from "everyone" after all, he is winning the race and it's not all centrist votes he is taking now is it? Change that to "everyone on the left" and you may be more correct. But Republicans don't worry too much about those on the far left yet a lot of more centrist Democrats are siding with Trump and that will really irk the Democratic party more than the Republicans will be irked! One thing for sure, Trump is going to piss of a lot of people but if the majority wants him, then good for the majority and too bad for each party, that's how it works in a democracy!

To answer your question: It's a terrible way of selecting candidates.

so it's better to have someone who knows better make the pick for you? That's what you do in Canada/UK/etc. With that reasoning, doesn't it follow that you should allow those who know better elect the MP's as well? I know it sounds silly to make that suggestion but how am I so wrong?

I know this can not happen, but I would love to see a "test" of sorts to allow you to vote. Something that demonstrates you know the issues, know how things work, etc. Then you really are leaving things to those who know better!

GMTom wrote:so it's better to have someone who knows better make the pick for you? That's what you do in Canada/UK/etc. With that reasoning, doesn't it follow that you should allow those who know better elect the MP's as well? I know it sounds silly to make that suggestion but how am I so wrong?

I know this can not happen, but I would love to see a "test" of sorts to allow you to vote. Something that demonstrates you know the issues, know how things work, etc. Then you really are leaving things to those who know better!

No, that's not what I meant. To vote in NY's primary this season I would have had to declare a party last October, and then I would only be limited to that party. That's dumb, and also undemocratic. In other states you have same day registration or open primaries, but we live in a state with a firmly established establishment that has no interest in outsiders having a say in anything. This is very different from other states, which results in uneven results across the country, to say nothing of the caucus states, which are even worse.

Every state should have an open primary that enfranchises as many people as possible. We don't have that, and that's a bad thing.

How is it "dumb" to limit voting to the party members themselves. I happen to be Republican, why on earth do I want Democrats to determine who will run in MY party and vice-versa?

Let's take a more "normal" primary, usually one of the parties is locked up fairly early
Let's say Hillary ran away with this as she was expected to do. The New York primary rolls around and all these Democrats need not vote for Hillary so they mess up the Republican nomination and vote for Cruz. The people of the party this year clearly wanted Trump (not me but the majority was solidly behind him), if Dems were allowed to vote for Republicans, then no doubt we would not have had it the way we wanted it!

Same day registration can be good, it can be bad.
By allowing same day, you make it very EASY to once again screw up one of the parties. In October you may not know who will have locked things up but same day, that would allow all soprts of chaos that I am fine limiting!

I could not disagree with your position more!
Absolutely no open primary! And absolutely no last minute enrollments! That is such a very very bad idea that only "seems" so nice and fair, think about the realities and it should dawn on you that it's really quite a messy idea!

I'm more concerned about the 30% of NY voters who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans. They have no say in the duopoly, and, yeah, I think that's dumb. All it does is to serve the interests of establishment politicians of both parties by keeping out the messy middle that actually decides non-primary elections. For president, NY independent voters had to figure out that they liked a candidate six months before the election is even held and then change their affiliation to vote for that person. That was months before Iowa! Lots of states do it better, some do it worse. We should all do it the same when it comes to national office.

.

GMTom wrote:so it's better to have someone who knows better make the pick for you? That's what you do in Canada/UK/etc. With that reasoning, doesn't it follow that you should allow those who know better elect the MP's as well? I know it sounds silly to make that suggestion but how am I so wrong?

I know this can not happen, but I would love to see a "test" of sorts to allow you to vote. Something that demonstrates you know the issues, know how things work, etc. Then you really are leaving things to those who know better!

We have a different system. A party leader still has to also win in their constituency, and we have more than two parties that have seats in Parliament.

You used to have States that put in a "test" to allow people to vote. Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia had them, for the first half or so of the 20th Century.

And yes, it was not just about race, but literacy and education level, but that was all part of Jim Crow.

tom

How is it "dumb" to limit voting to the party members themselves

1)A major reason is that you end up with candidates that are not electable in a general election when only a small subset of the party and of the voting public is involved.
(McGovern, Humphrey, Goldwater....) Surely a goal of the process would be to choose an electable candidate?

2)Since the cost of primary elections are largely borne by taxpayers, not the parties, I suggest that the notion that Parties get to set the rules and no one else is wrong. Whoever pays the cost should be able to control how the process woks to an extent.
If all tax payers are contributing to a parties primary process, shouldn't they also get to vote in whichever they want? Isn't this an issue not unlike no taxation without representation ? (replace representation with participation?)

3) greater legitimacy. right now the probable Republican nominee is calling the process rigged and fixed... how is the public supposed to have faith in the system? And without trust in the process.....
unrest grows.

4) greater legitimacy. A nationwide contest of one vote one man is the easiest to comprehend. Most democratic. And therefore would generate a process that all could support.

bbauska wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278469-dnc-chairwoman-if-up-to-me-id-exclude-independents-from

The establishment fears outsiders: They've built a comfortable life for themselves, and so none of them want open primaries. The point Ricky makes about taxpayers funding election costs yet not being able to participate in the election is a really good one. Seems positively un-American! You want a closed primary for only your party, fine, pay for it yourself! Ha, the absurdity of that happening actually made me snort.

I don't want to pay for an election, do you Geo?

Let's follow this "reasoning" of allowing Dems to vote in the Republican primary and vice versa...

George has a problem with 30% of New Yorkers being registered independent.
That's their choice and by doing so they fully understand they can not take part in a primary. It's about choice and the choice they made themselves, why are we suddenly worried they made a wrong choice? Let them decide for themselves, by registering independent the likelihood they would have even bothered to vote n a primary is slim anyways. It's about what the party decides for themselves. If someone chooses to be an outsider, that's the way they want it, let them do what they wish but please do not later say they should get to decide what goes on in the party they wanted nothing to do with!

Ricky wants to say we end up with bad candidates?
But that's who the party chose! Should we let them have a re-do until we get a choice that better suits someone else? No, if the Republicans want Trump, then Trump is who they get. If the party wants Hillary, then Hillary is who they get! So what if that person is 'not electable" So Ricky, you usually champion the common man, here you want to limit the peoples voice and have someone else make the choice for us? Who should make that selection? and how does that help make the common man more vocal? No, what you want is for the parties to run more and more communistic is what it sounds like to me....let the ruling party call the shots! Maybe they should elect the president while they are at it, hey, if the people can't make a good choice for who they want to run, then how oh how can we let them chose the leader a s well. If it fits for the primary, then it has to follow for the general election!

and his example of Trump is fairly laughable. he wants to use TRUMP as an example? I guess he really does cherry pick whatever suits his position, hey if Trump makes a claim, i guess it must be correct? And while Trump is complaining, he is about to wrap things up so that complaint kinda falls apart now doesn't it? (Not to mention the whole picking bad candidate stuff ....what one is it Ricky? you point to whatever suits your opinion)