Some on here have claimed that the political parties are "private enterprises". Turns out, that they actually aren't perceived that way in law.

In 1907, the Supreme Court of California noted in its decision in Katz v. Fitzgerald that:

[I]t is sufficient to say that the conception that a political party is merely a private association of citizens [has] been very generally abandoned, and, where not abandoned, the conception itself has been destroyed, as in this state by force of the constitution and the statutory laws enacted under it. By virtue of the constitutional provision the state has seen fit to declare that political parties shall be as to their mode of holding conventions and nominating candidates for public office, regarded as public bodies whose methods are to be controlled by the state.

The practice of subsidizing major parties’ primary elections was cemented into place when the Supreme Court ruled in Bullock v. Carter, also in 1972, that parties requiring candidates to pay excessive fees to appear on a primary ballot imposed an unconstitutional burden on the candidates’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. This ruling normalized the practice of having the public, not candidates or parties, pay for primary elections.

source: http://ivn.us/2015/07/30/story-behind-p ... primaries/

Since the parties are not wholly private, and since they are subsidized, it stands to reason that all citizens should rightfully have a say in what the process should be...

tom

Ricky wants to say we end up with bad candidates?

I didn't say that the parties, or anyone, want to end up with bad candidates.
I said that the process has nominated some bad candidates. McGovern and Goldwater were, from the get go, not electable...
It may well be that Mr. Trump, will be a competitive candidate. If so, I'm sure that the Republican Party will be happy to maintain the current system. If he is the disaster many predict ... perhaps it will be time to rethink. (It was just so after Romney failed, and the system was adjusted...) The shame is that they will be driven to reform by electoral failure, rather than by a proactive interest in improving the democratic process
In any case, the notion that this is merely the business of the parties is proven wrong by the practice of subsidizing the process and by legal rulings that say otherwise.

tom

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?

I quoted Trump as saying the election was rigged. Was the quote inaccurate?
What exactly is your position anyway? That Trump is wrong?
Care to offer evidence?
The problem for both parties (and you I suppose Tom) is that most Americans agree with Trump.

The poll, conducted by Reuters and Ipsos, found that some 51 percent of voters believe the primary system is rigged against certain candidates. Some 71 percent said they would prefer to pick their party's presidential nominee with a direct vote, cutting out the use of delegates as intermediaries.
The survey also found that 27 percent of likely voters do not understand how the primary process works, and 44 percent do not understand why delegates are involved at all.
Nearly half said they would prefer a single-day primary in which all states held their nominating contests together, as opposed to the current system which draws the process out for months.
The responses were about the same for both Republicans and Democrats

.

So, since the public is paying for the process, shouldn't they get to choose the process.?
And according to this poll, a single day prmary and direct vote seems to be what they want.
Should they get what they want Tom?

GMTom wrote: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.

Seems to me that his problem is that taxpayers help to pay for the process of primaries.

If the parties paid the full price, fine, let them set their own rules and exclude who they like.

But if the state is carrying some of the cost, then the people will have an expectation of having a say on how primaries are run.

In the UK (not sure about Canada), parties do not get their selection processes subsidised by the state.

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!

What George is saying is that New York not only excludes voters who are not registered to a party, but also have a long lead time to register for that party. Other states have different rules, and I think it that patchwork that leads to part of the problem - people look at what they could do if they lived over the border in the next state and wonder why that can't apply to their state.

and the States do in fact control much of what the party can do. In the NY example, voters are free to register to any party. They must do so by a certain date that the State allows. The State ensures you have these certain rights (and others). Simply because the state makes certain laws does not mean a primary must be open to all.

California stated primaries are to be controlled by the State
The state assures the population has enough time to register, they make sure they can freely join the party they wish, nobody is excluded who wants to join that party, etc.
They do not say anyone can vote in either primary or that they can register the same day. Nice try but because the state oversees things does not make it a free for all.

The State also pays for roads with taxes but you can't drive on them unless you have a license and stay within the speed limits. Similar here.Simply because they are public does not mean they are open to anyone and rules do not apply.

Oh, an dthat "patchwork" where States all have different rules...
Welcome to the United States of America, a Republic where each state has a great deal of autonomy. many liberals want to see one big state where the federal govt is the master while others (including our constitution) allow the States to maintain many of their own laws, own rights, own way of doing things.. we truly are a "patchwork" and actually want it that way....good choice of words to describe our union.

Oh, Tommy...

Well Ricky if you want to start comparing the USA to Canada (as usual) I might point out that yours has its own anti-democratic features, and things that aren't quite fair. You cite the electoral college as over representing the small states. In Canada, the variation in electoral quotients from one province to another over represents the smaller provinces in the House of Commons.

Why is this? I am not saying Canada is bad and the USA is good, what I am saying is that there must be features to keep the system stable that might be actually undemocratic. And I agree with Tom that we're a federation not a unitary state and must be governed that way. Canada is also a federation, in fact, it's more "truly federal" (a weaker central government) than the United States!

That said however, I do agree with you Ricky that the primary system needs to be revamped. What was intended to be more directly democratic (primaries instead of the old convention-system that had the real authority to choose the nominees) is a mess. So I have to agree with Ricky there. (wow did I just say that?)

hacker

Well Ricky if you want to start comparing the USA to Canada

Hacker, read the original post...
thats not the point of this at all.
The question is naturally going to arise if the republican fails in the general worse than his 2 predecessors, as to whterh the primary process is working to the advantage of the party.
Secondarily, the discussion will arise if it works to the good of the country...
I had no interest in comparing other countries...
Tom brought that up.

But its nice you ultimately agree with me that the system needs to be revamped. WOuld you do a national primary?

By the way, the current government in Canada has promised that the last election was the last one based on first past the post... so we'll be going through examinations of our electoral system, like we always do everything , earnestly, over the next year or 2.

If (read when) Trump is is nominated and if (again read when) he loses by a landslide ...so what? The people spoke and they nominated who they wanted. You can argue only a small portion of the party bothered to vote at all but how does that change anything. A good presidential election has barely over half voting at all. If the party wants Trump, then they have Trump. If the Dems want Hillary, then that's who they pick. And honestly, the Democrats and their super delegate system makes it more difficult for the people to get what they want.

The Republicans get a bad candidate ..so what?
And his winning the primaries as a bad candidate only reinforces that fact, the people get what they want and the system is not rigged against what the majority want.

Hell, I'm Republican, I can't stand Trump.
But that's who the party voted for fair and square. All the claims of things being rigged are hogwash and foolish, the claims that the system is wrong and calls to take peoples voices away just astound me, especially coming from our Liberal friends here, How can a Liberal want anyone but the general populace to determine who the candidate will be? This really does floor me!

and would I do a national primary? Absolutely not! The States have great power and great autonomy, we do not want to have an ultra strong federal government that oversees all we do. Many of us (and our constitution agrees with me) want each state to have more power than would a state or province or territory in most other countries. Thanks for thinking of us but we rather like it that way!

GMTom wrote:and would I do a national primary? Absolutely not! The States have great power and great autonomy, we do not want to have an ultra strong federal government that oversees all we do. Many of us (and our constitution agrees with me) want each state to have more power than would a state or province or territory in most other countries. Thanks for thinking of us but we rather like it that way!

Surely it's up to the parties, not the government. If the national parties decide they want a national primary, or more consistent rules across the states, they can do that without any involvement from the US government.

I do sometimes think there is confusion on this. For example, Common Core is also not "Federal". It was set up between the States - the National Governors Association and the States' education chiefs (which does also include some federal elements like the DoD education service and DC & some territories). Having set up those standards, the Federal Education department is taking an interest.

It is possible for state-level organisations to work at a national level without having to be part of the US Federal government.

all very true!
It sure did at least SOUND like one of the Federal Govt should do all type things our pal usually suggests and I guess I just read it that way. But a "National Primary" does imply the federal govt would be in charge doesn't it?

However, one fix could possibly be to have the primary election done on one day, all 54 states(as Obama called it) have the same day. But even then the current system has some real advantages. Right now we have two very early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. Both are relatively easy to campaign in and do so at a lesser expense that makes it easier for a candidate to be heard. If we had but one day, the candidate with the most money would have a tremendous advantage and whoever the party wanted would have a huge advantage (usually both would be the same making this no contest and eliminate any need for a primary!)
Thinking about it, I really do like the way we currently do things!
It would be nice to see each state do each primary in a more similar manner but they have the right to do things the way they like and that is just fine with me.

tom

The Republicans get a bad candidate ..so what?

Isn't the objective of the primary system to nominate a cadidate that can win election in the general?

GMTom wrote:all very true!
It sure did at least SOUND like one of the Federal Govt should do all type things our pal usually suggests and I guess I just read it that way. But a "National Primary" does imply the federal govt would be in charge doesn't it?

No, it was all your inference.

You have a "National Football League" but it's not run by the Federal government either

rickyp wrote:tom

The Republicans get a bad candidate ..so what?

Isn't the objective of the primary system to nominate a cadidate that can win election in the general?

Yes, but by definition, 50% of the two major parties, and 100% of all other parties fail in that regard.