User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/14/2004 11:03:20 PM EDT
[#1]
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? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2004 11:37:37 PM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 12:17:27 AM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 5:26:03 AM EDT
[#4]
You weren't under the impression that this *isn't* a liberal state, were you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 8:28:16 AM EDT
[#5]
I was under the impression that the Republicans had gotten their shit together.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 8:35:23 AM EDT
[#6]
How, by banding together with the Democrats and Libertarians to deny the voters the freedom to choose candidates regardless of party affiliation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 8:46:17 AM EDT
[#7]
I'll admit it.... I didn't vote in the primary.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 10:10:00 AM EDT
[#8]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 10:28:12 AM EDT
[#9]
Too bad about Simms. He would have been easier for Dino to handle than "Chris".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 11:22:30 AM EDT
[#10]
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  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 3:09:45 PM EDT
[#11]
How true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 4:23:37 PM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 6:57:31 PM EDT
[#13]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 7:37:53 PM EDT
[#14]
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....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 7:54:40 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 9:56:16 PM EDT
[#16]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 11:13:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Well in this case, It worked
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 12:56:09 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:47:51 AM EDT
[#19]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 3:27:14 PM EDT
[#20]
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?
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 3:31:54 PM EDT
[#21]
I meant states that aren't primarily liberal. This state has a liberal majority. This means that more liberals would vote for conservative nominees than conservatives. This is what I would rather not have. There was a petition for a referendum or some such going around to change the primary system not long ago. I of course did not sign it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 6:11:21 PM EDT
[#22]
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. 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 6:50:51 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:06:30 PM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:44:05 PM EDT
[#25]
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... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:01:44 PM EDT
[#26]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:14:07 PM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:18:37 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:21:33 PM EDT
[#29]
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:24:45 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:27:40 PM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:30:03 PM EDT
[#32]
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? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 1:27:38 PM EDT
[#33]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 2:00:58 PM EDT
[#34]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 2:05:28 PM EDT
[#35]
There you go again. Try to use logic and reason, not emotions, and perhaps you could have a decent argument. Your political affiliations seem quite apparent. There is a major party who shares your exact MO. You are correct, I don't wish to be associated with freedom limiters, because I am not one. For instance I will never join a labor union because, for one reason, I do not wish to support John Kerry or any other Democratic Party member, because they are freedom limiters. I will remain an NRA member because they do support freedom. It is the peoples' choice which party they wish to go with in the primary. Yes, a choice. I am not worried about the minimal amount of liberals who will try to 'rig' anything. There will still be much more control by the Republican party over the Republican candidates, and for the other two parties, no matter how much you might imply there won't. I could really care less if you don't get to choose who I vote for, since you are clearly not voting for the same people I am. Yes, I have returned assumption with assumption in this post. Such is life... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 9:32:26 PM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 9:45:44 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 9:50:01 PM EDT
[#38]
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 10:34:49 PM EDT
[#39]
|
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 10:35:22 PM EDT
[#40]
|
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2004 11:33:47 PM EDT
[#41]
I'll just go find another thread, have fun guys....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 5:24:12 AM EDT
[#42]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 8:06:08 AM EDT
[#43]
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. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 12:28:08 PM EDT
[#44]
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) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 1:22:22 PM EDT
[#45]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 1:43:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Exactly every time there was a blanket primary. That is the answer to your question. That is when there was a problem. The liberal majority was selecting candidates for all the parties. The problem did exist. The problem no longer exists. Thank God. Thank the legislature. Thank the judicial system. Your analogy creation still needs work. No ties. No logic. I didn't say previously it wasn't a problem. I said NOW it isn't a problem. Pay attention. Read contextually. Let it sink in. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 1:58:07 PM EDT
[#47]
If you think everyone in the state should select who is on the ticket for all the parties, that is your opinion. Mine is the opinion that each party should choose their candidates. The new system allows people to choose a party to select candidates for that party. I agree with it wholeheartedly. Here is my analogy. I can choose to do business with anyone I like for any number of things. I do not feel I should have the right to choose their employees. I will let them choose their employees, then choose to do business with them or not. Now, I can choose to vote for party members or not. I do my research. There are not always good choices for every seat in every election, no matter who put those people there. However, I feel it is the party's right to put people on the tickets. They do this by letting people vote for all of the nominees in a party through our primary system. Other parties, besides the three, can still put people of their choosing on the ticket. I just happen to agree with this. Could it be better? Perhaps. I just think the old way was the worst way. I *am* glad it has changed. That is my opinion. I will not whine because someone doesn't agree with me. I will rebut when questioned. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 10:22:31 PM EDT
[#48]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 10:29:50 PM EDT
[#49]
Is Sam Reed a Republican? What does he think about the new style of primary elections?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2004 10:39:39 PM EDT
[#50]
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? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
