House bill: allow Independent, non-party affiliates to vote in primary…
House bill: allow Independent, non-party affiliates to vote in primary…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
12 Comments
There is a very simple solution to this that requires no action whatsoever on the part of the legislature. All of you "independents" and non-affiliated types just need to check a box on your voter registration form and declare a party. Then by the miracles of nature, you can vote in a primary. This is not very difficult.
In NJ one can declare a party at the voting booth. Then declare "Independent" the day after.
Sure cuts down on election mailers.
.
This is a Democrat ploy to control the selection of Republican candidates. Imagine running John McCain in perpetuity. Throw in a little ACORN action and we end up with a one Party system. No thanks. Primaries are Party events, not state events.
The closed primary system works because it protects the parties from the other disrupting their primaries.
While I am fully supportive of allowing independents to vote in judicial elections ranging from local magistrate up to the State Supreme Court, I can't imagine that a blanket application of such a policy will be good for the state. Ultimately, it will make organizing parties at the local or state level much more difficult and will make voter outreach a nightmare.
BINGO!
And the Parties, not the State, should be paying for the election.
The PA Constitution states “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the rights of suffrage.” 3rd Party candidates have to get large amounts of signatures, compared to major party candidates, just to be on the ballot in the general. 3rd Party candidates should only have to meet the same requirements as other major party candidates and should be able to participate in their own 3rd Party primaries the same time as the other majority parties. 3rd Party supporters and only 3rd party supporters could pick their candidate or candidates in a truly free and equal election. And thus bring about a possible 3rd party and maybe a future replacement for one of the two in majority.
Part 1
It’s currently very tough to get signatures to participate in the general in the first place. It is no wonder they get discouraged when their hard earned signatures are routinely challenged by well connected political elitists.
There is nothing free and equal about setting double standards for candidates participating in the election process. If 3rd Party candidates had their own primaries, voters would have an earlier opportunity to hear their platforms and issues. These candidates would actually be contenders in the primary races rather than by-standers. It is their civil right to be able to run for office.
Many active Democrat supporters campaigning in 2006 were the same people working in Harrisburg to bump off 3rd Party candidates across the Commonwealth that year. This trickery is nothing more than a bureaucratic way of cheating. Those candidates represented another choice on the ballot that could have taken votes away from mainstream candidates. It’s discrimination at best and sends a strong message to the public; the politically connected decide who our candidates are.
Part 2
“The intent of this legislation is to ensure that every elector’s voice is heard and recorded during primary elections,” DePasquale said. “Our current closed primary system leaves thousands of Pennsylvanians disenfranchised on primary Election Day. Regardless of political affiliation, voters should be able to have a say in their candidates.”
From this statement Rep. DePasquale sees there is a big problem with the current legislation pertaining to our states elections. But what he is failing to recognize is our state constitution and that elections are to be free and equal for all parties, and all the people running, and the people who are voting for there chosen candidates.
Part 1
People who vote for the Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Constitutionalist, and etc. vote for different issues or ideas then Republican and Democrat. Giving those people in the many other parties a chance to participate in a primary for a Republican or Democrat will only strengthen the two current majority parties. All third party candidates should be able to get signatures from any person in any third party to get on the ballot in the primary. Then the top two vote getters in the primary get to go to the general to represent their 3rd party. This will strengthen the strongest third parties in that area.
DePasquale is not only wrong, he's intentionally wrong. No one is disenfranchised by a closed primary. Primaries aren't general elections–they're intended for the members of the respective parties to select their candidates for the general elections. If an individual wants to have a say in that, he needs to join one or another party. Simple, obvious, and completely antithetical to the leftists who want to flood the primaries for the GOP.
Let those parties on the ballot too, but with closed primaries.