Hillary For President

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

And why not? Any legally eligible voter should be able to vote in the primary election for a party of their choosing. One vote to be cast for the candidate they support. Isn't the intent of the primary to whittle down the number of candidates so that we will not have a situation like CA where Schwarzenegger got elected governor?

Is a two party (and no more) enshrined in the constitution?

Effectively. One district one representative is enshrined in the Constitution. So only one wins in each district, no consolation prize for anyone else. First past the post is it.

Big-tent parties will win, narrow-appeal parties will not. The more 'your side' is split up, the more the other side wins. It's going to boil down to two parties, because 'third' parties just can't win enough to survive.

Only systems that offer proportional representation sustain small parties. Have to rewrite the constitution here for that.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by finnbow

They knew the rules and registered as they wished to register. What's it to you?

Well to me it means I do not have a candidate that represents me at any level of government. I see the government as an entity that is apart from the people of this country. A government of the party, like what China has. I do not think this is what our founding fathers had in mind... a government of the party and for the party that represents ONLY the party.

I guess 40% of the people also see a problem with this.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The two party system is not enshrined anywhere, if 40% are independents then why doon't they pull the finger out and form a party?

That is indeed the question of the hour, and I suspect the answer lies in the myriad of laws and regulations put in place by the two party system that makes it difficult if not impossible for indie candidates to run, from the difficulty of "registering" to the media shut out, to the cost.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Which explains a lot ...

Hater's gonna hate.

[Rajoo]

What happened, exceeded your word count limit?

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by merrylander

But Rajoo that is what the close primary does - and since independents have not chosen a party they do not vote. I can just picture the havoc that could occur if primaries were wide open. You hate the NNN party front runner so you vote for some asshole.

So what?

That's voting strategically.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Of course you have.

You Clintonistas have infiltrated every nook and cranny of this electoral system.

No wonder so many of Bernies voters are turned away at the polls because they have been mysteriously disappeared from the voter rolls, or had their registrations changed so that they are ineligible to vote.

If you're going to rig an election, ya gotta have plenty of people on the inside.

You are completely delusional, dude.

Read this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ainst-sanders/

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And we have yet to see how California will vote.

Clinton will clear that magic number of 2026 pledged delegates on the evening of the 7th.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

It's no surprise to me that you are OK with disenfranchising 40% of the nations voters because they choose not to join one of the private clubs known as the Democrats and the Republicans, elitist snob that you are.

It's called self disenfranchising. It costs nothing to join the party that you wish to have a voice in.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

An independent should have the option of voting for either one of the major parties. I came back to my question, who is paying for these primaries that the two major parties have a stranglehold on?

Last I checked we have six parties in California.

As to who pays for the primaries? The taxpayers do, the same as they pay for other infrastructure.