Why shouldn't the Democratic Party only allow registered Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary? Should WalMart employees have a say in how Microsoft runs its business?
CC.net Sanders supporters* have been pretty silent since NY. Luckily, we`re not reddit. So thanks guys for staying away from the delusional stuff even if you`re not happy the way things are going. This threads been dominated by us Clinton folx since then. `Hopefully we haven`t been too abrasive as the 4/20 smoke clears. *exception granted for glynch who's been consistent with his anti-elitist, corporatist, oppressor opinion since Hugo Chavez was a lad. The US is actually pretty unique in the amount of influence it lets the great unwashed have in its candidate selection. Most places choose the nominees behind closed doors and only allow voters a say in the election. (I know there are other, possibly greater barriers with the two party system, etc etc, just pointing out that this 9 month public process isn't the norm).
Horrible analogy. There shouldn't be a 2 party system run by big money interests. We the people have allowed them to rig a system where, as a candidate, if you don't meet their party criteria you have no chance of ever being elected. If you are a citizen, and have an ID, you should be able to go down and vote for whom ever you wish. But there is too much at stake for the establishment to make it that easy. As a matter of fact they purposely continue to make it harder for people to vote. I've never in my life understood how someone can go in and blindly vote for "the party."
It's pretty easy in Texas, just pull the all D lever and you avoid voting for assholes. Of course, you don't elect anybody, but at least you can feel self-righteous.
You can do all that in the General. Go write in Rick Perry if you'd like. I'm still waiting for you to explain why they should allow unaffiliated people or the opposition to vote in their own party's Primary.
Because it would be the democratic thing to do? Because it IS allowed, and it is possible to tweak it such that it looks like you allow it but in reality you employ a security blanket against it? Maybe the party leaders should come out and flat out say what you're saying exactly the way you're saying before the coming primaries, and see how that goes with "their" voters? Or maybe because independents are by definition not affiliated to anyone else? Maybe as a US citizen you should be against this because it perpetuates the two party system which diverts your democracy from being a true reflection of American votes? Maybe because you need those people to defeat Trump, given Hillary is only a few points ahead of him atm, and it's not a good idea to risk the next 4 years of the country's prosperity on insisting that Hillary becomes the nominee? When I tell people that this is a single party with two factions, it doesn't help that the establishment on the left and on the right are acting EXACTLY the same way - the only difference being, maybe Bernie should have faked some fascism like Trump to get through it. Is that the example you want to be setting? Come on guys. It's ridiculous. She won by, essentially, the rules of her and her friends who don't share a world view with America. That's fine, it's their party, they can do what they want, but they also have to deal with the repercussions. What you end up with is two candidates in the general, a right winger and a very right winger. Great job, you won.
Well it is silly to pretend that the Dem Party is just another private corporation (though that is what it is) like for instance like Apple, that has the right to make its own rules in an undemocratic fashion given American government as it now exists. Mathloom said because of "democracy". For many partisans this is not important only "winning", so their response is "haha, yeah, give me a break!" Hence the Repub partisans push large scale voter suppression in order to keep winning with their dwindling white voter base-- a tactic which is obviously undemocratic. Hence, Hillary/status quo corporate Dems support the "rules are the rules" for instance depriving 3.2 millions independents in NY from voting whether undemocratic or not so their folks can win. So short sighted. Think some of them might be upset? Dems can probably get away with this since NY usually goes Dem, but real native son, Trump might be strong. I read an interesting article that says one of Bernie's demands of Hillary for whole hearted support might be to make the Democratic Party more democratic. Same day registration, open primaries, no super delegates all the types of things that make Dems less democratic. Whether they realize it or not such reforms leading to a replacement of the corporate Dem types might just be what saves the Dem Party from splitting. Not this election, so relax Hillary Dems. Hillary types will not be happy with these demands, but may have to acceed as I suspect that polls will start showing Trump gaining on Hillary who has proven to be a sort of Romney type candidate who despite unanimous agreement from party insiders that " this is her time" is not really that good of a candidate.
Because it would be the democratic thing to do. The 2 party system is fixed to maintain their control of power and prevent a 3rd party candidate from having a chance. Why should a person's vote NOT matter/count until the primary? Bottom line is there shouldn't be a 2 party system. Everyone's vote should count, all the time. Not just once 50% of the people have decided the rest of the people should get a choice of the lesser of 2 evils. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html
Well it is silly to pretend that the Dem Party is just another private corporation (though that is what it is) like for instance like Apple, that has the right to make its own rules in an undemocratic fashion given American government as it now exists. Mathloom said because of "democracy". For many partisans this is not important only "winning", so their response is "haha, yeah, give me a break!" Hence the Repub partisans push large scale voter suppression in order to keep winning with their dwindling white voter base-- a tactic which is obviously undemocratic. Hence, Hillary/status quo corporate Dems support the "rules are the rules" for instance depriving 3.2 millions independents from voting whether undemocratic or not so their folks can win. I read an interesting article that says one of Bernie's demands of Hillary for whole hearted support might be to make the Democratic Party more democratic. Same day registration, open primaries, no super delegates all the types of things that make Dems less democratic. Whether they realize it or not such reforms leading to a replacement of the corporate Dem types might just be what saves the Dem Party from splitting. Not this election, so relax Hillary Dems. Hillary types will not be happy with these demands, but may have to acceed as I suspect that polls will start showing Trump gaining on Hillary who has proven to be a sort of Romney type candidate who despite unanimous agreement from party insiders that "that this is her time" is not really that good of a candidate.
I am not sure why you find this to be a hard concept to understand. What you're suggesting is that people should belong to a certain party and blindly follow their party's philosophy. By this logic, why bother running candidates and having an election? Just let the party decide their leaders for each level of government and have the citizen register "R" or "D". You understand much of the corruption lies within the party. By locking people in or out of parties gives the party more control.
I predict exactly this same poor loser sentiment from some Sanders supporters. Don't worry, had Trump lost we would be getting the same response from his supporters. Failure is always someone else's fault.
We need a progressive Koch brothers to spend a couple of billion dollars creating a new third party. You could have the right wing GOP, Centrist Democrats and left leaning Progressives, then political compromises could be made and we wouldn't be stuck with gridlock. Wingnuts are always paranoid about Soros but where is he (who is he?). Appoint Bernie the party chairman and let's get this thing organized. (but alas, no liberal Democrats would leave their safety net because it would take a decade to get any influence in Congress for legislation and committee appointments)
Look at countries with multi-party system. They have their own problems. I would suggest the smaller parties have no voice unless they align with a bigger guy. Just imagine a Sanders' liberal party with 15-20% of the votes. What can he accomplish? Not free tuition for college students, I don't think. When he aligns with the democratic party, some of you would suggest that he sells out?
Political Revolution takes generations or War. Since no War yet, then we have to wait for the old way of thinking to die off which is sooner rather than later.
The continuation of Obamacare is not making healthcare a major issue. Abandoning universal healthcare because it wasn't feasible 20 years ago is a mistake. We will never get there if leadership says it can't happen.
It can happen and it will eventually, just not now. So many people still feel the system is great, even if we are paying twice as much as other industrialized nations for worse services.
I don't know anybody happy with the current system. Political leaders need to fight for something so important. Change often seems difficult or impossible, and then it happens relatively quickly.
Trying to force a program that doesn't have the votes in Congress and that is paid for with a tax program that is even more controversial I wouldn't consider progress. Sanders supporters hate incrementalism but with something this major it will need to be a gradual process.
