Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: No, I Am Exactly Correct 20

Journal by pudge

Red Warrior is angry with the political parties in Washington. He says, "The government (meaning the taxpayers) should not have to pay for the internal functions of political parties."

While this is true -- and in fact, no one ever said that they HAVE to, including the political parties -- what he apparenrly means is that they SHOULD NOT pay for those internal functions (in this case, a nominating primary). I stated the obvious:

The nominating primary was *always* a "private political party function", even when it was a blanket primary.

He responded, incorrectly:

Simply put, you lie. It was NOT a "private political party function". That was specifically why it was overturned in the courts a few years back, leading to I-872. Honest, look up the court case and the arguements made.

He is, simply put, wrong. The reason it was overturned was precisely because it was a private political party function, which the government was exercising undue control over. Because it was a private political party function, the party gets to say how it is done, and the state therefore lost the case.

Every public nominating primary, that exists in (IIRC) 49 states, is *by definition* a private political party function, that the public pays for. That's what it is. They are all, every one of them, by definition, private political party functions that the public pays for, that the state and the parties compromise on in order for both to get some sort of public participation in the nominating process.

And it is therefore unreasonable to say you don't like one type of public nominating primary because the public pays for it, but that other kinds of public nominating primaries are OK.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No, I Am Exactly Correct More

No, I Am Exactly Correct

Comments Filter:
  • Red Warrior is angry with the political parties in Washington.

    Nice mischarcterization. I don't think the public should have to pay for the private workings of political parties. That is different from "being angry with". In fact, in my JE I specifically mentioned having mixed feelings about the court decision.

    what he apparenrly means is that they SHOULD NOT pay for those internal functions

    If by "apparently means" you mean "plainly stated in so many words", then yes. Also, nice attempt to try to indi

    • Prior to doing away with the blanket primary, it was NOT a private function of the parties

      Yes, it was. It was a private function of the parties that the government usurped undue control over. It never ceased to be private.

      If every public nominating primary that exists in 49 states (IYRC) is *by definition* a private political party function, then I think the public should not pay for it.

      Exactly. But you were advocating for the Top Two, which involves precisely the opposite. Hence the inconsitency.
      • Heh. One more reply. It's my mind, I can change it as often as I choose.

        Exactly. But you were advocating for the Top Two, which involves precisely the opposite. Hence the inconsitency. To be consistent, you would have had to say you opposed any nominating primary, including the one instituted by I-872.

        Only if I felt that said nominating primary was a private party function. Opposite of what I said. YFI. Furthermore, your post fails internal consistency, as you are replying to a post where I said I'd vote

        • Heh. One more reply. It's my mind, I can change it as often as I choose.

          I wouldn't have it any other way. I am not here to beat you up, despite your insistence to the contrary.

          Only if I felt that said nominating primary was a private party function.

          I know. But regardless of how you feel, it in fact is a private party function, in exactly the same manner as the Montana-style primary we had last year. In both cases, it is the choice of a private organization being determined by the votes of the publi
  • I am glad it was struck down. Why should Dems be allowed to choose who gets through the republican primary (and vice versa)?

    Even if a dem is planning on voting for a certain Republican (or any other party) in the actual election - which they can still do - why should they be able to affect the primary for a party they have no affiliation with?

    My sister is a Dem and is also very agry with the primary decision, and is showing her anger by....wait for iiiit....boycotting the primary altogether.

    Which is of
  • Political parties are not in the constitution [usconstitution.net]:

    Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organi

    • Political parties are not in the constitution

      Right. But this is not about parties, in particular. This is about the right of *anybody* to use their own resources to get a candidate on a ballot, and to not have to put their name up as endorsing some candidate they don't endorse. It just so happens that way we do this is through political parties, but the same would hold if it were just one guy in his mom's basement.

      So I'm with Red Warrior on this one. They can run their own phone in or internet poll t
      • But this is not about parties, in particular.

        In particular or not, I'm just informing the audience that may not know already that I'm dubious about political parties. Its not a horse race, its a gladiator style leviathan battle.

        All along, the parties were private organizations with a political decision to be made.

        We probably all agree then that public funds going to such private decisions is, though beneficial overall to the discourse of democracy, a false endorsement of a political system (i.e. two-p
        • We probably all agree then that public funds going to such private decisions is, though beneficial overall to the discourse of democracy, a false endorsement of a political system (i.e. two-party system or party system at all) that many find extra-governmental.

          I don't.

          First, it is not about two parties. The Libertarian party was on the primary last year in WA, for example.

          Second, I think -- as Jefferson did, and almost every President since -- the party system is an inextricable part of our system of g
          • First, it is not about two parties.

            It shouldn't be, at least.

            the party system is an inextricable part of our system of government

            Ibid.
            • Why? What's wrong with parties? A party is just a way for a group of people with similar interests to band together to accomplish common political goals. That's a GOOD thing, isn't it? Isn't that the essence of political freedom?
              • A party is just a way for a group of people with similar interests to band together to accomplish common political goals. That's a GOOD thing, isn't it? Isn't that the essence of political freedom?

                Not for those of us who simply don't have similar interests- then the parties becaume political slavery. If you don't agree with abortion, you can't be a Democrat, if you don't agree with letting big business enslave third world countries and put Americans out of work, you can't be a Republican. Where are thos
                • If you don't agree with abortion, you can't be a Democrat

                  Not entirely true, but largely and increasingly accurate.

                  if you don't agree with letting big business enslave third world countries and put Americans out of work, you can't be a Republican

                  Not remotely true.

                  Where are those of us who believe that both abortion and corporatism are evil supposed to go?

                  Well, since the GOP is anti-abortion and anti-corporatism, you could join them. But assming you actually believe your mischaracterization of the GOP: who s
                  • Not entirely true, but largely and increasingly accurate.

                    Really? When was the last time you saw a Democrat speak up for the rights of the unborn to live?

                    Not remotely true.

                    One word- CAFTA. It's obvious that the Republicans are in the pocket of big business- and totally out to screw anybody who earns less than what they consider a "respectable" ammount.

                    Well, since the GOP is anti-abortion and anti-corporatism, you could join them.

                    Yeah, right- and that's why Kenny Boy Lay is still walking around sc
                    • Really? When was the last time you saw a Democrat speak up for the rights of the unborn to live?

                      http://www.democratsforlife.org/ [democratsforlife.org]

                      One word- CAFTA.

                      One word that, when used in this context, shows you don't really understand that word. CAFTA would not enslave third world countries (it has nothing to do with such countries), and is likely to result in a net increase of American jobs.

                      It's obvious that the Republicans are in the pocket of big business- and totally out to screw anybody who earns less than what they
                    • On the Democrats- THANK YOU- I'm going to be setting asside some time if I can figure out when my local DFL meeting is.

                      One word that, when used in this context, shows you don't really understand that word. CAFTA would not enslave third world countries (it has nothing to do with such countries), and is likely to result in a net increase of American jobs.

                      Last I saw, most of Central America was considered third world countries. They earn far less then the Mexicans whose jobs they will be taking. And if y
                    • if you believe that crap about a "net increase" of American jobs- which is the same lie Clinton told us about NAFTA, then why haven't we seen a net increase of manufacturing jobs from NAFTA?

                      I never said there would be a net increase in manufacturing jobs. I said "jobs." And we did see a net increase in jobs.

                      How is [that the Republicans are in the pocket of big business- and totally out to screw anybody who earns less than what they consider a "respectable" ammount] false?

                      Because it is, in no way, true? Y
                    • I never said there would be a net increase in manufacturing jobs. I said "jobs." And we did see a net increase in jobs.

                      So is that why so many factory towns have shut down? Or do you mean McJobs and WalMart jobs that have all been taken by illegal aliens? The problem with the "net increase in jobs" is that the government never seems to take into account the net increase in POPULATION.

                      Because it is, in no way, true? You've not offered the slightest bit of evidence to support it, so I hardly think it is
  • Louisiana has an interesting dodge that may make its rather unique 'primary' legal. The 'primary' is actually the general election with all canidates who meet the filing requirements on the ballot. If no canidate in a particular race gets a certain percentage of the vote (50.1% I believe) they have a runoff election.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close