and if not what what you done to try to change the rules thru the years?

The rules for each party are set by that state's party committee. So if you are not a member of a political party you have no say in setting the rules. If you want to change things you'd need to join a party and then act within that party's state organization to affect change. I'm not a member of any party so I have no skin in the game.

and if not what what you done to try to change the rules thru the years?

The rules for each party are set by that state's party committee. So if you are not a member of a political party you have no say in setting the rules. If you want to change things you'd need to join a party and then act within that party's state organization to affect change. I'm not a member of any party so I have no skin in the game.

Not exactly true, at least not everywhere. Here in Maine we've always been a caucus state for presidential primaries, but after the clusterf*ck we just experienced there is a bill moving through the state legislature that has bi-partisan support to switch to presidential primaries that would be held on a Tuesday in March and be run by the state rather than the political parties. What's not clear is whether they would be closed primaries, as they are now in Maine for gubernatorial and congressional races (meaning only voters enrolled in one party or the other can vote) or open primaries as they are in many other states (meaning anyone could vote in whichever primary they want regardless of party enrollment). I am not currently enrolled in a party so naturally I'd prefer an open primary system.

So while I'm sure it varies state-by-state, don't think just because you aren't enrolled in a party that you have no say or stake in how the primary system is structured.

[Edited on 4/19/2016 by gondicar]

and if not what what you done to try to change the rules thru the years?

The rules for each party are set by that state's party committee. So if you are not a member of a political party you have no say in setting the rules. If you want to change things you'd need to join a party and then act within that party's state organization to affect change. I'm not a member of any party so I have no skin in the game.

Not exactly true. Here in Maine we've always been a caucus state for presidential primaries, but after the clusterf*ck we just experienced there is a bill moving through the state legislature that has bi-partisan support to switch to presidential primaries that would be held on a Tuesday in March and be run by the state rather than the political parties. What's not clear is whether they would be closed primaries, as they are now in Maine for gubernatorial and congressional races (meaning only voters enrolled in one party or the other can vote) or open primaries as they are in many other states (meaning anyone could vote in whichever primary they want regardless of party enrollment). I am not currently enrolled in a party so naturally I'd prefer an open primary system.

So while I'm sure it varies state-by-state, don't think just because you aren't enrolled in a party that you have no say or stake in how the primary system is structured.

First I've heard of a state getting involved, but then again I am no expert. But picking a candidate is the party's business. Not too long ago delegates to the national convention were selected at state conventions by party big shots. Candidates were then "appointed" by the delegates. Primaries as we know them are maybe 50 years old.

I live in a state that has open primaries so I am able to participate. But sometimes in the general I have voted for the candidate of a different party from the primary I voted in. It's nice to be able to participate, but I really don't know why parties would allow non-members to be involved in what is essentially their internal decisions. Why should I, as a non-member, have a say in who the Democrat or Republican party puts forth as their candidate? It is a quirky system, to say the least.

and if not what what you done to try to change the rules thru the years?

The rules for each party are set by that state's party committee. So if you are not a member of a political party you have no say in setting the rules. If you want to change things you'd need to join a party and then act within that party's state organization to affect change. I'm not a member of any party so I have no skin in the game.

Not exactly true. Here in Maine we've always been a caucus state for presidential primaries, but after the clusterf*ck we just experienced there is a bill moving through the state legislature that has bi-partisan support to switch to presidential primaries that would be held on a Tuesday in March and be run by the state rather than the political parties. What's not clear is whether they would be closed primaries, as they are now in Maine for gubernatorial and congressional races (meaning only voters enrolled in one party or the other can vote) or open primaries as they are in many other states (meaning anyone could vote in whichever primary they want regardless of party enrollment). I am not currently enrolled in a party so naturally I'd prefer an open primary system.

So while I'm sure it varies state-by-state, don't think just because you aren't enrolled in a party that you have no say or stake in how the primary system is structured.

First I've heard of a state getting involved, but then again I am no expert. But picking a candidate is the party's business. Not too long ago delegates to the national convention were selected at state conventions by party big shots. Candidates were then "appointed" by the delegates. Primaries as we know them are maybe 50 years old.

I live in a state that has open primaries so I am able to participate. But sometimes in the general I have voted for the candidate of a different party from the primary I voted in. It's nice to be able to participate, but I really don't know why parties would allow non-members to be involved in what is essentially their internal decisions. Why should I, as a non-member, have a say in who the Democrat or Republican party puts forth as their candidate? It is a quirky system, to say the least.

Primaries started to come into use in the early 1900s, so they've been around for 100 years. What changed 50 or so years ago was making the results of the primaries and caucuses binding on convention delegates to particular candidates, which also led to more widespread use of primaries vs caucuses. And I'm pretty sure that in most if not all cases, primary elections are run by states and municipalities, while caucuses are run by the parties themselves.

Do you support your state's system of choosing delegates?

I'm a Democrat and I live in Kansas. It's a useless gesture regardless of process. 😛

LOL Bhawk.

ok, another question.

should the party's.....GOP and Dem or any other, have the right to choose delegates, the way they do, taken away from them?

is there a way to change things so that candidates are chosen solely by total votes?

total votes has never been the system we....in the USA.....have used. is there a way to change that?

i'm not sure about the next statement i am making but,

when we try and impose democracy on other nations, should we be allowing them our system or what i think we ask them to do, which is popular votes. (maybe we have them elect delegates too, i don't know)

none of what is happening is new. some candidates want you to think it is new and is not fair, but what have they ever done to change the system in the past say 20-30 yrs?.......LOL....nothing is my perspective.

should the party's.....GOP and Dem or any other, have the right to choose delegates, the way they do, taken away from them?

No. IMO, the focus should be to open the political arena far beyond the ridiculously compounded structure that exists today.

Two political parties or ten, they should retain the right to choose their nominee. It should also remain that individual states choose whether or not to use state resources to facilitate elections. I happen to live in a state where the state government is not involved in the process beyond registrations. Other states use formal balloting, whichever, that isn't the issue.

We need more choices, no matter the process.

318 million people live here
235 million people over the age of 18, represented by two factions of 535 people
535 is 0.0002% of 235 million

It should be open primaries, but it is not in NY. When I went to vote they told me we had the option of voting for the delegates or not. We did not have to, we could just choose the candidate if we wanted to; so I am not really sure what they do here. I voted for the candidate and the delegates who said they would give their vote for him.

The whole process needs an overhaul on a national basis; but even if that was done, remember what they pulled last time, re-districting?

There is so much corruption in the entire system, the whole thing needs to be redone.

As a resident of New York state, I have several problems with our election process. First and foremost, we have tax payer supported Election offices in most every county that controls that particular counties electoral process. The individuals who work within these offices are evenly split between the Democratic party and the Republican party. All other parties are excluded.

These individuals receive a salary and benefit package completely tax payer funded. As far as I know, these individuals are not selected via the civil service system, or based upon merit, or even, based on minimum qualifications. They are political patronage jobs, nothing more!

Secondly, the costs of both primary and general elections are born entirely by the tax payers of the individual counties as well as state tax payers when, on the rare occasion, NYS provides some monies.

What we have is a system essentially controlled by two parties that restricts voter turn out by limiting the participation of other political parties all funded by the tax payers and not the political parties themselves. It's yet another glaring example of the corruption that is longstanding within New York state politics.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

Here in Maryland we vote for the delegates to the National Conventions.
The upside is now the delegates on the ballot state which Presidential Candidate they support.

This is a States Rights issue that both major parties need to address.
the odds are not good.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

________________________________________________________________________

So you approve the Republican's having 17 some candidates to choose from and are against the Democrats giving you only one, Hillary Clinton?
Bernie Sanders was in there just for appearances I guess.

again correct, it is the Party's Systems.

also most voters really don't have any skin in the game other than saying they belong to a Party. they don't do any work for the Party though. they don't regularly attend Party Events.

GOP and Dems aren't Gov't entities. why do states pay the bills for either of them in the primaries?

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

________________________________________________________________________

So you approve the Republican's having 17 some candidates to choose from and are against the Democrats giving you only one, Hillary Clinton?
Bernie Sanders was in there just for appearances I guess.

No, you missed the point completely (no surprise), which was that I am for open primaries as long as we have a defacto 2-party system.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

I understand your point, though I'd prefer to see the 2 party system break down completely. The last few elections I have voted 3rd party, partly because I didn't like the major party candidates, but mostly just to support the 3rd party concept. One of these days people will get so disgusted with the 2 major parties that a strong Libertarian or Green party candidate will have an impact. I think we're taking a pretty big step in that direction this election cycle, although the 3rd parties haven't come up with the right candidate. Wouldn't it be great if Sanders or Kasich decided to make an independent run?

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

I understand your point, though I'd prefer to see the 2 party system break down completely. The last few elections I have voted 3rd party, partly because I didn't like the major party candidates, but mostly just to support the 3rd party concept. One of these days people will get so disgusted with the 2 major parties that a strong Libertarian or Green party candidate will have an impact. I think we're taking a pretty big step in that direction this election cycle, although the 3rd parties haven't come up with the right candidate. Wouldn't it be great if Sanders or Kasich decided to make an independent run?

________________________________________________________________________

If you really did vote for a 3rd party candidate you pissed your vote away.

No 3rd party candidate has ever won an election for president and will not for decades to come.

Why so you think that the "independent" Bernie Sanders ran as a democrat?
He had to throw his principles aside to pander for real votes.

If you really did vote for a 3rd party candidate you pissed your vote away.

No 3rd party candidate has ever won an election for president and will not for decades to come.

If you think the point in voting is to simply try to pick who will win I'd say you are the one pissing your vote away.

If you really did vote for a 3rd party candidate you pissed your vote away.

No 3rd party candidate has ever won an election for president and will not for decades to come.

If you think the point in voting is to simply try to pick who will win I'd say you are the one pissing your vote away.

_________________________________________________________________________

The point of voting is it choose the person most able and qualified to run the country.
After the last over 7 years of an amateur and complete failure we need to elect a professional and their is only one running: Trump.

quote:
If you really did vote for a 3rd party candidate you pissed your vote away.

No 3rd party candidate has ever won an election for president and will not for decades to come.

If you think the point in voting is to simply try to pick who will win I'd say you are the one pissing your vote away.

Thank you Bob. I consider voting a huge responsibility. I have to vote my conscious. Even if my candidate doesn't win I know I did the right thing. I think anyone with integrity knows the importance of voting based on one's convictions.

To "support your state's system of choosing delegates" someone would first have to know what that system is.

Few do.

Very True

You would also have to realize that it is only partially your "state's" system. It is mostly your "party's" system. Don't belong to a party? Then you have no skin in the game of picking their candidate. This is why I don't fully understand the idea behind open primaries, although since I live in a state that has them I participate, and not always with the same party's ballot. Being an independent gives me primary voting superpower.

I disagree, to an extent. I think in theory what you are saying is correct, but in reality we only have, in effect, a two party system and even if I choose not to belong to either party I still think that I and others like me should have a say in which two people we will ultimately have to choose from. If the "system" can ever be reformed to the extent that we all have more choice in who gets elected (more national parties or just more candidates available to vote for), then I would be more inclined to agree with you.

I understand your point, though I'd prefer to see the 2 party system break down completely. The last few elections I have voted 3rd party, partly because I didn't like the major party candidates, but mostly just to support the 3rd party concept. One of these days people will get so disgusted with the 2 major parties that a strong Libertarian or Green party candidate will have an impact. I think we're taking a pretty big step in that direction this election cycle, although the 3rd parties haven't come up with the right candidate. Wouldn't it be great if Sanders or Kasich decided to make an independent run?

Agreed that we need more parties to choose from on a national level. I have always felt that these parties need to start on the local level and prove that their policies will work and then build upon that.