US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Tywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The difference is a political party is not a political office. Exactly what that piece from Kos was talking about. It's a private organization. The franchise does not extend to participation in private organizations for what should be obvious reasons.

Not being able to vote on the next book your neighbour's book club reads is not voter suppression.

This doesn't change just because your taxes might be funding it, as Fez's public university example illustrates. "My tax dollars pay for this school!" does not give you a vote in student elections if you aren't a student.

Funny enough, I was a twice elected member of my university's student government, and you actually had to register to vote in those elections. So merely being a student at the school didn't make you eligible to vote in the student elections. 

And yes, a political party is not the same as the office, but it's the gateway to it. And the question at had is a philosophical debate about whether you want to open up the political process as much as possible or close it when it's to your advantage. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Funny enough, I was a twice elected member of my university's student government, and you actually had to register to vote in those elections. So merely being a student at the school didn't make you eligible to vote in the student elections. 

And yes, a political party is not the same as the office, but it's the gateway to it. And the question at had is a philosophical debate about whether you want to open up the political process as much as possible or close it when it's to your advantage. 

Tywin,

And the existence of the "de facto" structure making party memebership a gateway to political office is a huge problem in my opinion and why I would oppose full public funding of elections.  It would further entrench the existing structure making party membership even more essential to getting into office.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

A friend of mine had trouble voting in the New York Republican Primary. 

[The Fallen]

When I switched from Democrat to Independent in New York City one of the particulars I had to consider was whether I wanted to give up my right to vote in the Democratic primaries. Since I was no longer a Democrat I didn't think it was unfair to not be able to vote for their candidate. I don't remember how I became aware of that restriction - whether the warning is on the registration or whether I had read it elsewhere prior to making the switch. I think, though, that it's pretty well-known that you can't vote for either party's primary as an independent.

I'm actually kicking myself for not having switched to Democrat before the deadline.

[Tywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

And the existence of the "de facto" structure making party memebership a gateway to political office is a huge problem in my opinion and why I would oppose full public funding of elections.  It would further entrench the existing structure making party membership even more essential to getting into office.

What would you prefer then?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tywin,

Full open disclosure of all donations to candidates and parties.  Amounts, dates of payment, everything.  

As for elections I wish would do away with primaries and require all legally qualified candidates who register for the general election to appear on the ballots for the general election.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

Full open disclosure of all donations to candidates and parties.  Amounts, dates of payment, everything.  

As for elections I wish would do away with primaries and require all legally qualified candidates who register for the general election to appear on the ballots for the general election.

What is your understanding of what would  make for a "legally qualified" candidate? 

[Tywin et al.]

Scot,

If you do that you could have 20 people from the same party on the general election ballot. You might have so many candidates on the ballot that the winner could end up with <20% of the vote, and President The Rent Is Too Damn High Guy would ascend to the Oval Office. 

[Maithanet]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

Full open disclosure of all donations to candidates and parties.  Amounts, dates of payment, everything.  

As for elections I wish would do away with primaries and require all legally qualified candidates who register for the general election to appear on the ballots for the general election.

It seems like the result of that would be one of: 

A ) The two major parties put their muscle behind one candidate, and those candidates are the only ones with the infrastructure/support/financing to win.  The public no longer has any say in who the party chooses each election.

B ) The votes are split between many different candidates so no one gets 270 EVs.  The embarrassingly gerrymandered and unrepresentative House of Representatives selects the President. 

In my opinion, both of those are worse than the current system.  Why would you want to go this way?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

What is your understanding of what would  make for a "legally qualified" candidate? 

Constituonally qualified to hold the office for which they seek election.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Scot,

If you do that you could have 20 people from the same party on the general election ballot. You might have so many candidates on the ballot that the winner could end up with <20% of the vote, and President The Rent Is Too Damn High Guy would ascend to the Oval Office. 

Yup, or we could have the office and have require the voter to write in the person they want for the office.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Constituonally qualified to hold the office for which they seek election.

Just out of curiosity, if there are no other limits other than the bare minimum constitutional requirements for seeking office, how many people do you think are going to be listed on the average ballot for President of the United States? 

[Tywin et al.]

@Maithanet

I agree. I think it would be better to open up the process and make it more transparent rather then upending the whole thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maithenet,

How is adding control of the purse to the power to determine who may and may not be on a ballot to existing two party powers an improvement?  Strings will be placed on any funding scheme insisting people be party members before they can run for office.  I gurantee it.

[Tywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup, or we could have the office and have require the voter to write in the person they want for the office.

Going off of what Nestor said, if you remove all the barriers besides the constitutional requirements, we'd end up with a popstar as our president, or whomever can most effectively activate their twitter followers. 

[julynnastarkfan]

10 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

You know, as someone who does not what to be affiliated, I do think I should have a right to make a choice in the nominee for one of the only two people who can feasibly be elected in our system. Now, I did register dem so I could vote in our caucus for Bernie, but I still feel like shit for doing it. I am now a "registered democrat" which is bullshit, because I'm not a democrat nor will I ever be one. But I had to pretend to be one so I could take part in the voting process. 

I haven't registered as either a Democrat or a Republican, I live in Missouri and vote for whatever party or candidate that I choose. I don't understand why we still have delegates and the Electoral College. They are antiquated systems that rig the election so that the establishment can determine who gets the nomination, and influence the general election. When the US was first formed delegates were needed/acceptable, but now we should have the people vote to determine the nominess/ winners. 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

12 hours ago, Bonesy said:

Which is better than no chance at all to push forward his ideals if elected how?

This is a near-sighted view of the reality of a two party system.

Except Sanders is positioning himself as an incorruptible idealist.

 

He has long decried the two party system, and said that no change can from either party.  Now he's changing his tune because he wants to be President.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Going off of what Nestor said, if you remove all the barriers besides the constitutional requirements, we'd end up with a popstar as our president, or whomever can most effectively activate their twitter followers. 

And a stated desire to seek the office.

Nestor,

Lots and lots.  That's why I suggested having people write in their prefered candidates instead of the list and ballot combined.

[Altherion]

Just now, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Except Sanders is positioning himself as an incorruptible idealist.

 

He has long decried the two party system, and said that no change can from either party.  Now he's changing his tune because he wants to be President.

I don't think so. I'm fairly confident that he was fully aware of his chances against the Clinton juggernaut, but decided to run anyway in order to at least pull her a little bit to the left. He may want to be President (few politicians don't), but I very much doubt that is why he decided to run in the Democratic primary.

[Tywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And a stated desire to seek the office.

Nestor,

Lots and lots.  That's why I suggested having people write in their prefered candidates instead of the list and ballot combined.

Kanye West said he's running in 2020.