Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
17,302 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
CNN dancing in the hallways. Probably naked in some of the offices too.

Nemo

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,200 Posts
Good, the less Trump-backed candidates we have in November, the better chance we have of defeating the democrats!
While I agree, the outcome will still hinge on the election being legitimate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,362 Posts
Much of the South is Open Primaries, a legacy from when the Democrat Party was the sole route to power. Now the open primary system is weaponized against the Republicans via crossover voting. The left votes for the weakest or the least Republican candidate, particularly targeting Trump endorsees. The AP reported that they easily counted enough Democrat crossover votes to keep our gullible and incompetent Republican Secretary of State as the Republican candidate for this fall's elections. Don't count on Primary numbers as true indicators of actual support come election day.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ICP_Juggalo

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
Much of the South is Open Primaries, a legacy from when the Democrat Party was the sole route to power. Now the open primary system is weaponized against the Republicans via crossover voting. The left votes for the weakest or the least Republican candidate, particularly targeting Trump endorsees. The AP reported that they easily counted enough Democrat crossover votes to keep our gullible and incompetent Republican Secretary of State as the Republican candidate for this fall's elections. Don't count on Primary numbers as true indicators of actual support come election day.
Point of order…
So long as the major parties wish to use tax dollars and state resources to conduct primaries and propose a slate of candidates for the November ballot, what logical basis exists to not allow an open primary? If I’m not going to be a card-carrying dues-paying union member for a job why is there an expectation that I should do so for my voting rights?

I am an issues person in a blue county in a red(ish) state in a (currently) blue country. There is no way in which a party allegiance does not punish me. I have home-turf issues that must be handled blue, transportation issues that must be handled purple, tax issues that must be handled red, voting issues that must be handled blue, and business issues that must be handled red. People (and parties) will always disappoint but issues still need to be worked. If a major party chooses to have closed door meetings and put out their slate of candidates without tax dollars and state resources, then I’ll be done contemplating their primaries and only pay attention to their final candidate slate. If they screw it up by putting not putting issue-compatible candidates on the ballot, then I’ll not vote for them and they will lose.

As to whether or not crossover voting “screws” a candidate? We’re big into trusting unsupervised adults with firearms. Surely you don’t mean we can do that but not trust them with the ability to vote…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,362 Posts
When a person identifies as blue and votes in the red primary solely for the purpose of denying the actual persons identifying as red with zero intention of voting red in the general election, I would say there is a problem. If we are going to allow political parties to "short-circuit" the nomination process, we should allow those parties to protect their nominating process from outside influence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
Thank you 45_fan, this is EXACTLY my problem with the way primaries are done right now. I get limiting a person to one party per election, but county Sheriff and US Senator are two different elections! If the whole issue is that "these are private party elections" then they shouldn't be using public money, public workers, at public polls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
When a person identifies as blue and votes in the red primary solely for the purpose of denying the actual persons identifying as red with zero intention of voting red in the general election, I would say there is a problem. If we are going to allow political parties to "short-circuit" the nomination process, we should allow those parties to protect their nominating process from outside influence.
The parties are free to choose to hold their primaries behind closed doors without state monies if they wish to do so. As it is currently, the parties have decided to use state funding and therefore host open-to-all primaries. If I alternate red and blue every primary because I feel like it, this is not a short-circuiting of process. It is literally the agreed upon process.

On a much larger tangent, I’d rather see ranked choice voting instead of party primaries. Members of one party complaining the other party ruined their primary is kind of the crux of the systemic failure to represent that a tribalistic two party system has brought us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,570 Posts
Let me further follow up with “If the Republicans want me to always vote Republican in the primaries”, they’ll have to actually run multiple candidates in positions they currently run zero because their own crappy redistricting has created a losing district for them. Same for the Democrats except for the part about redistricting.

Or for an alternate perspective: I have to keep voting in Democratic primaries so I don’t get Cynthia McKinney back.
Do we really want to change that???
 

·
Professional Troll
Joined
·
2,260 Posts
If you want closed primaries, then petition your party to move their candidate selection process to their annual convention and let the delegates choose - all on their own dime. As long as I am forced to pay for political parties to conduct what is essentially party business, then I have the right to participate in any party primary as I see fit without having to declare a party affiliation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Malum Prohibitum
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top