Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/14/2004 9:46:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 10:35:41 PM EST by KA3B]
FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:03:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 10:04:49 PM EST by R-32]
Im not so sure...

but time will tell...

BTW...Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth?

and if you do....can I watch?
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:37:37 PM EST
Did you check out the primary results?
Almost every democrat has more votes that their Republican counterpart, and that's if you include the other Republican votes.

At least Ron Simms is staying home.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:17:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Did you check out the primary results?
Almost every democrat has more votes that their Republican counterpart, and that's if you include the other Republican votes.

At least Ron Simms is staying home.



Welcome to politics by party rather than voter. There were far more contested races on the dem ticket, meaning it is likely that more dems than reps voted in the primary. It don't mean nuthin 'till November, and then we'll see if the parties have destroyed voter participation in this State for good.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:26:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:28:16 AM EST
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.


Originally Posted By JAFO:
You weren't under the impression that this *isn't* a liberal state, were you?

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:35:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:46:17 AM EST
I'll admit it.... I didn't vote in the primary.


Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:10:00 AM EST
Maybe just more of us voted absentee, I did and those numbers aren’t reflected right away. I'll be more interested in the numbers in a few days.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:28:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:22:30 AM EST
Pretty bad Republican turnout for the primary. Nethercutt is going to get whipped He will win E WA hands down but unfortunatly only King, Pierce and Snahomish Counties determine who our 2 Progressive Dem Senators will be .
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:09:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By tangeant:
Pretty bad Republican turnout for the primary. Nethercutt is going to get whipped He.



How true.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 3:23:37 PM EST
Years ago when initiative 695 (I think it was 695) was on the ballot mandating gun training at the same time as a gay-rights initiative, Republicans came out from everywhere and voted both down with a vengence.

I think we have plenty of Republicans in this State, they just don't vote.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:57:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:37:53 PM EST
Well I'm a recent convert [thankyouverymuch] and I voted Republican for the first time in almost 20 years!! So it wasn't MY fault....

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:54:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By JAFO:
I'll say it again... I sure as hell would rather choose my own Republican candidates than let the liberal majority in this state choose them. I don't want to have to choose between Demonrats and the most liberal Republican *they* selected. It's about time Washington got in line with the way other states do primaries.



We never had to declare in Ohio. And I have always voted for the Dem who would lose in the primary.

Ron Simms for Governor!!!!!!!!!!

Then come Nov, I vote for the man to do the job!


By the way, dont give the libs credit to be smart enough to do the same. They may not play by the rules, but they also feel and not think.

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:56:16 PM EST
You might want to consider that there are those voters out there that voted democrat in the primary, to "help" choose the best candidate for the November election. Then on the November election, those sly voters will vote for Republican folks. I know of a few that did this, as there was very little to gain voting Republican this primary, and more to gain voting on the Democratic side. Just to help the "best qualified" get to the November election.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:13:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By 4Jays:
I know of a few that did this, as there was very little to gain voting Republican this primary, and more to gain voting on the Democratic side. Just to help the "best qualified" get to the November election.



Well in this case, It worked
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:56:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
[By the way, dont give the libs credit to be smart enough to do the same. They may not play by the rules, but they also feel and not think.



I happen to know that in the last pres. election cycle many ultra lefties living on Waldron Island were voting for McCain (because they felt he would be easier to defeat)...only to vote Nader in the general.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:47:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 6:49:27 AM EST by Boomer]

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



I'll say it again... I sure as hell would rather choose my own Republican candidates than let the liberal majority in this state choose them. I don't want to have to choose between Demonrats and the most liberal Republican *they* selected. It's about time Washington got in line with the way other states do primaries.



I'll say it again...I SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER THE FUCK I WANT TO FOR WHATEVER FUCKING REASON I WANT TO. I can't believe people, especially supposedly freedom loving gun owners on this board, have a problem with that. Next up, you'll have to declare a party affiliation to vote in the general election and will only be allowed to vote for the candidates of that party.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 2:27:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 2:31:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:11:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



I'll say it again... I sure as hell would rather choose my own Republican candidates than let the liberal majority in this state choose them. I don't want to have to choose between Demonrats and the most liberal Republican *they* selected. It's about time Washington got in line with the way other states do primaries.



I'll say it again...I SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER THE FUCK I WANT TO FOR WHATEVER FUCKING REASON I WANT TO. I can't believe people, especially supposedly freedom loving gun owners on this board, have a problem with that. Next up, you'll have to declare a party affiliation to vote in the general election and will only be allowed to vote for the candidates of that party.



You can vote for whomever you wish in the election. Simple. Not hard to understand. You just can't nominate my conservative party's candidates, you have to select only your liberal party's candidates. How could it be more simple?



No, you CAN'T vote for "whomever" you want to. So what if someone is an independent and doesn't vote along party lines. You just fucked them out of the chance to vote for the candidates in the primaries that they would like to vote for in the general election. Then again, who really needs a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock, right? Well, you just prefer to fuck someone else out of their freedom. What fine company you keep.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:50:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:06:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



I'll say it again... I sure as hell would rather choose my own Republican candidates than let the liberal majority in this state choose them. I don't want to have to choose between Demonrats and the most liberal Republican *they* selected. It's about time Washington got in line with the way other states do primaries.



I'll say it again...I SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER THE FUCK I WANT TO FOR WHATEVER FUCKING REASON I WANT TO. I can't believe people, especially supposedly freedom loving gun owners on this board, have a problem with that. Next up, you'll have to declare a party affiliation to vote in the general election and will only be allowed to vote for the candidates of that party.



You can vote for whomever you wish in the election. Simple. Not hard to understand. You just can't nominate my conservative party's candidates, you have to select only your liberal party's candidates. How could it be more simple?



No, you CAN'T vote for "whomever" you want to. So what if someone is an independent and doesn't vote along party lines. You just fucked them out of the chance to vote for the candidates in the primaries that they would like to vote for in the general election. Then again, who really needs a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock, right? Well, you just prefer to fuck someone else out of their freedom. What fine company you keep.



This primary system keeps no Independents out of the election. If they want to vote for a Republican, Democrat, or other during the election, they can. They just have to vote for the one that THE PARTY selected. Still pretty simple. You are a little off on your evil features analogy. No ties. Use logic next time you try.



Use logic? You're the one cheering about denying voters the freedom to support the candidates they want to regardless of party affiliation. But I can understand your reluctance to be identified with others who like to limit the freedom and choices available. Too bad it's spot on.

And I don't suppose it's yet to occur to you that someone can STILL register and vote for the "other" party, thereby negating your whole vote rigging scheme. Some logic there, pal. So what's next? Issuing official ID cards to party members to further require them to vote only for "their" candidates? Well, how are you going to keep people from casting protest votes?

And by the way, exactly when was the last time a candidate was chosen in the primary elections who wasn't representative of how the majority of how their party voted? Well? Yeah, that's what I thought. A sloution in search of an answer.

One would think the Republican dumbfawks would want EVERY vote they could get in their continual uphill fight in this state, not to further alienate and disenfranchise their constituents. With shit like this, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth it to vote at all.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:44:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 9:47:17 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:01:44 PM EST
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:14:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 10:15:35 PM EST by Boomer]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...



You shouldn't be able to sabotage the other party and help your own. You should be allowed to pick one candidate for each race in the primary, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever. No voting for both a Republican AND Democrat candidate vying for the same seat.

If we're having a primary election to decide the candidates for both a Senate seat and a House seat and I happen to like to like a Republican Senate candidate and a Democrat or Independent House candidate, WHY SHOULDN'T I be allowed to vote that way? Why should I be REQUIRED to declare a party affiliation and then be allowed to vore ONLY for the candidates for that party FOR EACH AND EVERY RACE? And even if I want to cast a "sabotage" vote, ISN'T THAT MY FUCKING RIGHT? Or do principles just not matter to you?

Thanks for at least clearing up the nonsense about this completely eliminating "sabotage" votes.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:18:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By headpulper:
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.



So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:21:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...



You shouldn't be able to sabotage the other party and help your own. Which is why you have to pick a partyYou should be allowed to pick one candidate for each race in the primary, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever. No voting for both a Republican AND Democrat candidate vying for the same seat. If you have an incumbent on one side, this becomes a moot point, as you can jump over and mess with the 'other side's' ticket, without cost

If we're having a primary election to decide the candidates for both a Senate seat and a House seat and I happen to like to like a Republican Senate candidate and a Democrat or Independent House candidate, WHY SHOULDN'T I be allowed to vote that way? Because the PRIMARY is for PARTY LOYALISTS to pick WHO THEIR PARTY RUNS, as an alternative to the old 'smoke filled room'. It is not about picking candidates to win, you do that in the general election. Why should I be REQUIRED to declare a party affiliation and then be allowed to vore ONLY for the candidates for that party FOR EACH AND EVERY RACE? So that if you decide to crossover/sabotage vote there is a cost which you must consider And even if I want to cast a "sabotage" vote, ISN'T THAT MY FUCKING RIGHT? The system still allows it, but at the cost of helping to pick who runs for your party Or do principles just not matter to you? We have different principles

Thanks for at least clearing up the nonsense about this completely eliminating "sabotage" votes.

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:24:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By headpulper:
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.



So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.



The only reason that primaries are public is to insure fairness & make the outcome legally enforcable.

They are, for all practical purposes, SUPPOSED to be for party loyalists only.

If you don't want to be constrained by a 2 party system, then vote for whoever you want in the general election. But don't get mad becaue the parties won't let you play THEIR GAME when you refuse to play by their rules.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:27:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...



You shouldn't be able to sabotage the other party and help your own. Which is why you have to pick a partyYou should be allowed to pick one candidate for each race in the primary, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever. No voting for both a Republican AND Democrat candidate vying for the same seat. If you have an incumbent on one side, this becomes a moot point, as you can jump over and mess with the 'other side's' ticket, without cost

If we're having a primary election to decide the candidates for both a Senate seat and a House seat and I happen to like to like a Republican Senate candidate and a Democrat or Independent House candidate, WHY SHOULDN'T I be allowed to vote that way? Because the PRIMARY is for PARTY LOYALISTS to pick WHO THEIR PARTY RUNS, as an alternative to the old 'smoke filled room'. It is not about picking candidates to win, you do that in the general election. Why should I be REQUIRED to declare a party affiliation and then be allowed to vore ONLY for the candidates for that party FOR EACH AND EVERY RACE? So that if you decide to crossover/sabotage vote there is a cost which you must consider And even if I want to cast a "sabotage" vote, ISN'T THAT MY FUCKING RIGHT? The system still allows it, but at the cost of helping to pick who runs for your party Or do principles just not matter to you? We have different principles

Thanks for at least clearing up the nonsense about this completely eliminating "sabotage" votes.




So if I want to see a Republican win one race and a Democrat or Independent win another I shouldn't be allowed to vote as such in the primaries. What I wonderful system you espouse that makes sure everyone's voice is heard.

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it.

But you are right about one thing. We certainly have different principles. Please stay in Wisconsin.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:30:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By headpulper:
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.



So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.



The only reason that primaries are public is to insure fairness & make the outcome legally enforcable.

They are, for all practical purposes, SUPPOSED to be for party loyalists only.

If you don't want to be constrained by a 2 party system, then vote for whoever you want in the general election. But don't get mad becaue the parties won't let you play THEIR GAME when you refuse to play by their rules.



In case you missed it before:

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it. x2.

Why are you meddling in Washington state politics anyhow?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:27:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.



If the initiative passes that allows for open primaries again, then I expect something like that to happen. The parties will probably resort to a caucus system to select the candidates to represent them. And since when does having a choice equate to no freedom?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:00:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By headpulper:
And since when does having a choice equate to no freedom?



That's like saying you can still have a choice semi-automatic firearms, just no flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, or collapsible stocks. I mean it's just a minor limitation, right?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:05:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:32:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By JAFO:
I am not worried about the minimal amount of liberals who will try to 'rig' anything.



And yet you've gone to such effort to defend changing our primary system and restricting our voting freedoms to prevent a minimal possibility that you are admittedly not even worried about. Priceless.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:45:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 8:53:29 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By headpulper:
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.



So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.



The only reason that primaries are public is to insure fairness & make the outcome legally enforcable.

They are, for all practical purposes, SUPPOSED to be for party loyalists only.

If you don't want to be constrained by a 2 party system, then vote for whoever you want in the general election. But don't get mad becaue the parties won't let you play THEIR GAME when you refuse to play by their rules.



In case you missed it before:

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it. x2.

Why are you meddling in Washington state politics anyhow?



A logical argument is a logical argument...

Funny thing is, I had this exact same discussion with someone I met on Weds night - she had never voted in a primary before, and wondered why she could only vote for one party (and if this was a 'new thing' that would be in the general election too)...

And as for 'your system', apparently someone felt a need to change it, probably to encourage an ideological purity among the folks picking party candidates...

Also, we have a similarly dreadful system for municipal elections in WI: political parties are banned, everyone runs as an independant, there is a primary to narrow it to 2 and then those 2 run in the general election.

The result is often NO CHOICE of ideology - you will get 2 guys singing the same tune in the general election. So we had an election for Milwaukee Mayor recently, where 2 far left Democrats ended up being the candidates. If we had used the proper party system, there would have been a choice besides 'A White Liberal' and 'A Black Liberal' who both agree with eachother 100% on almost every major issue, as the Republican candidate would not have been a liberal.


Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:50:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...



You shouldn't be able to sabotage the other party and help your own. Which is why you have to pick a partyYou should be allowed to pick one candidate for each race in the primary, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever. No voting for both a Republican AND Democrat candidate vying for the same seat. If you have an incumbent on one side, this becomes a moot point, as you can jump over and mess with the 'other side's' ticket, without cost

If we're having a primary election to decide the candidates for both a Senate seat and a House seat and I happen to like to like a Republican Senate candidate and a Democrat or Independent House candidate, WHY SHOULDN'T I be allowed to vote that way? Because the PRIMARY is for PARTY LOYALISTS to pick WHO THEIR PARTY RUNS, as an alternative to the old 'smoke filled room'. It is not about picking candidates to win, you do that in the general election. Why should I be REQUIRED to declare a party affiliation and then be allowed to vore ONLY for the candidates for that party FOR EACH AND EVERY RACE? So that if you decide to crossover/sabotage vote there is a cost which you must consider And even if I want to cast a "sabotage" vote, ISN'T THAT MY FUCKING RIGHT? The system still allows it, but at the cost of helping to pick who runs for your party Or do principles just not matter to you? We have different principles

Thanks for at least clearing up the nonsense about this completely eliminating "sabotage" votes.




So if I want to see a Republican win one race and a Democrat or Independent win another I shouldn't be allowed to vote as such in the primaries The primaries aren't for picking winners, they're for picking runners. The idea is that you pick the guy from your party, and that if you want someone to win who's not from your party you wait 'till the general election.. What I wonderful system you espouse that makes sure everyone's voice is heard. That is why there is a general election after the primaries. The Republicans don't want Democrats voices to be heard when picking REPUBLICAN candidates - it just makes sense. And running a primary like a general election - grouped by office, makes even less sense. In a primary, the race for 'Democratic Sherriff Noiminee' is a totally separate election than 'Republican Sherriff Nominee'...

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it.

But you are right about one thing. We certainly have different principles. Please stay in Wisconsin.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:34:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By headpulper:
It appears that some have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that the primary is intended for the benefit of the parties to select who they want to represent them in a given race. An open primary system is like having a Baptist telling me how to live as a Catholic. If you feel left out, it is because you chose to operate outside the party system. But, that is a choice. So is the choice of picking one of the three parties on the ballot. The General Election on the other hand is for the benefit of all registered voters.



So now public elections shouldn't be inclusive and tough nuts to anyone who doesn't want to be constrained by a 2 or 3 party system. Wonderful logic there. Apparently some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. If the individual parties want their own little votes, maybe they should stop holding them on the public's dime.



The only reason that primaries are public is to insure fairness & make the outcome legally enforcable.

They are, for all practical purposes, SUPPOSED to be for party loyalists only.

If you don't want to be constrained by a 2 party system, then vote for whoever you want in the general election. But don't get mad becaue the parties won't let you play THEIR GAME when you refuse to play by their rules.



In case you missed it before:

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it. x2.

Why are you meddling in Washington state politics anyhow?



A logical argument is a logical argument...

Funny thing is, I had this exact same discussion with someone I met on Weds night - she had never voted in a primary before, and wondered why she could only vote for one party (and if this was a 'new thing' that would be in the general election too)...

And as for 'your system', apparently someone felt a need to change it, probably to encourage an ideological purity among the folks picking party candidates...

Also, we have a similarly dreadful system for municipal elections in WI: political parties are banned, everyone runs as an independant, there is a primary to narrow it to 2 and then those 2 run in the general election.

The result is often NO CHOICE of ideology - you will get 2 guys singing the same tune in the general election. So we had an election for Milwaukee Mayor recently, where 2 far left Democrats ended up being the candidates. If we had used the proper party system, there would have been a choice besides 'A White Liberal' and 'A Black Liberal' who both agree with eachother 100% on almost every major issue, as the Republican candidate would not have been a liberal.






Originally Posted By Boomer:
In case you missed it before:

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it. x2.

Why are you meddling in Washington state politics anyhow?

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:35:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.




How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation?



WHY should you be able to sabotage the other party's candidate AND help your own?

You guys have, IIRC, what we've allways had here: open partisan primaries. So you have to choose between a sabotage vote and a constrructive one...

Think about it: Do you want all the Democrats picking the biggest RINO for the (R) ticket?

The whole idea of partisan primaries is to make sure that each side runs it's strongest candidate. Non-partisan primaries defeat the purpose of that...

And an (I) just has to chose which race is the most important...

We are, after all, a 2 party system by design, so true independants are rare... It's hard to be liberal AND conservative...



You shouldn't be able to sabotage the other party and help your own. Which is why you have to pick a partyYou should be allowed to pick one candidate for each race in the primary, whether it be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever. No voting for both a Republican AND Democrat candidate vying for the same seat. If you have an incumbent on one side, this becomes a moot point, as you can jump over and mess with the 'other side's' ticket, without cost

If we're having a primary election to decide the candidates for both a Senate seat and a House seat and I happen to like to like a Republican Senate candidate and a Democrat or Independent House candidate, WHY SHOULDN'T I be allowed to vote that way? Because the PRIMARY is for PARTY LOYALISTS to pick WHO THEIR PARTY RUNS, as an alternative to the old 'smoke filled room'. It is not about picking candidates to win, you do that in the general election. Why should I be REQUIRED to declare a party affiliation and then be allowed to vore ONLY for the candidates for that party FOR EACH AND EVERY RACE? So that if you decide to crossover/sabotage vote there is a cost which you must consider And even if I want to cast a "sabotage" vote, ISN'T THAT MY FUCKING RIGHT? The system still allows it, but at the cost of helping to pick who runs for your party Or do principles just not matter to you? We have different principles

Thanks for at least clearing up the nonsense about this completely eliminating "sabotage" votes.




So if I want to see a Republican win one race and a Democrat or Independent win another I shouldn't be allowed to vote as such in the primaries The primaries aren't for picking winners, they're for picking runners. The idea is that you pick the guy from your party, and that if you want someone to win who's not from your party you wait 'till the general election.. What I wonderful system you espouse that makes sure everyone's voice is heard. That is why there is a general election after the primaries. The Republicans don't want Democrats voices to be heard when picking REPUBLICAN candidates - it just makes sense. And running a primary like a general election - grouped by office, makes even less sense. In a primary, the race for 'Democratic Sherriff Noiminee' is a totally separate election than 'Republican Sherriff Nominee'...

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it.

But you are right about one thing. We certainly have different principles. Please stay in Wisconsin.





Originally Posted By Boomer:
In case you missed it before:

Our system here in Washington has been working fine for 70 years. There was no need to change it. x2.

Why are you meddling in Washington state politics anyhow?

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:33:47 PM EST
I'll just go find another thread, have fun guys....
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:24:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 4:43:50 AM EST by JAFO]
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:06:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 7:17:58 AM EST by Boomer]

Originally Posted By JAFO:

Originally Posted By Boomer:

Originally Posted By JAFO:
I am not worried about the minimal amount of liberals who will try to 'rig' anything.



And yet you've gone to such effort to defend changing our primary system and restricting our voting freedoms to prevent a minimal possibility that you are admittedly not even worried about. Priceless.



Not much effort to use reason and logic to state my opinion. Yes, your voting freedoms as a Democrat should not include selecting the Republican candidates. Oh, guess what? That is what the new primary system will prevent. Hmm. Go figure. It's sad that you can't grasp that, but what can we do to help you understand?

Also, my argument is against the liberal majority selecting candidates from outside their party, not the liberal few who might try to 'rig the vote' with the new system in place.



So, for the second time now, exactly when was the last time our open primary system presented a problem? Hmmm? Oh wait, that's right, you already said it wasn't a "problem" worth worrying about. The saddest thing is you obviously don't even realize how much your "logic" sounds just like that of the good folks in favor of the assault weapon ban, looking for solutions to a "problem" so minor and irrelevent that it might as well not even exist.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 11:28:08 AM EST
JAFO, can you name one time in the last 10 years where Republicans have believed that Democrats/Independents have "crossed over" in the primary and voted for a republican they wanted in the general election, and this process worked in WA?

Or vise versa, where Republicans did the same thing to rig an election, and it worked? At least in an election where more than a few hundred people vote?

Consider if you will that some voters (independents if you will, not the party, but true independents that want the best candidate for EACH office) really are trying to vote that way. It's not a case of a democrat or republican crossing over to screw the other side.

I understand why BOTH parties voted this through in WA, and took it to the Supreme Court to have our new system we have. Just realize that there are allot of people out there that weren't crossing over under our prior system to screw any party, they were just trying to vote to get in their opinion, the best people into office.

Consider also, that in my opinion, the sickest answer I hear in politics is the following. "I only vote for democrats (or republicans)." With the follow-up information that in many cases the person doesn't know who the candidates are, or what they stand for, their voting records, etc., they just blindly follow like sheep. I believe this is why Jim McDermott keeps getting re-elected. If voters did their homework and were educated about the candidates, and voted for their choice of the best candidates, maybe we would have the best-elected officials. If this is all Democrats, or all Republicans, then so be it.

In my opinion, in a worst case scenario, you could have the most radical(far right) republican going against the most radical (far left)democrat. That's the party’s right to do this.

But I also think that is why the democrats have Kerry in there right now, and it will probably cost them the election. (Hope so)
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:22:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 12:23:18 PM EST by headpulper]
4Jays, yours is the best, well-reasoned statement for your side of the issue I've heard/read yet. However, I still maintain that the primary system is for the benefit of the party...not the registered voters. Some believe that they are being left out and that is unfortunate. Because I believe the best way to work "the system" is from within one of the two parties. Pick one that suites you most and get involved. For example, I feel the Republicans are tacking too much to the left. So, I started attending the caucuses in my district and going to the county convention as a delegate to help “steer” it back. I can tell you that I wasn’t the only one there that felt that way either. With enough influence, the party can be put back on track. Voting for the opposition does little to inform the party of your motives.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:43:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 12:50:19 PM EST by JAFO]
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:58:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 9:22:31 PM EST
Short answer; No, JAFO cannot name a time when the Washington state primary elections were successfully "rigged".

Just like the antis, needing a solution for a problem so remote and historically such a complete and utter non-issue that for all practical purposes it might as well not even exist.

Just more of the Californiafication of our state. How proud you must be to follow their example.

Gee, whatever other perceived "problems" should we go ahead and take pre-emptive action against?


Link Posted: 9/18/2004 9:29:50 PM EST
Is Sam Reed a Republican? What does he think about the new style of primary elections?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 9:39:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 9:40:08 PM EST by headpulper]

Originally Posted By Boomer:
Is Sam Reed a Republican? What does he think about the new style of primary elections?



So is Arnold...and what does he think about gun control?
Or how about Colin Powell and his views on abortion or affirmative action?
Now, What was your point about Sam Reed?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top