You are talking about a Constitutional issue here, people have the right to associate and it not be subject to government guidelines. It sucks, but political parties are within their right to not only organize in this manner but allow themselves both establishment support via delegates not bound *and* the ability to change the rules on the go.
One of the good things that is coming out of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns is that people are beginning to see that some of the state primary delegate selections rules are not exactly what some people would call as fair. With the proliferation of primaries over the last twenty years - today a vast majority of convention delegates come from the primary process unlike decades ago when only a minority were.
I would suggest that primary voters expect that their vote determines who from their state goes to the convention and who they vote for. The reality is that does not always turn out that way - and that is by intentional design where party power brokers still want a large voice in the process.
But political parties are not part of the Constitution and generally exist outside of legal regulation and control on purpose. But at the same time, states give over ballot access to the parties convention nominees and there is a close relationship between them.
And we hear Trump complaints about Colorado and a few theory states where the Cruz people appear to be picking his pocket of delegates and Sanders complains about the super delegates which resonates with some voters. Even Trump says Sanders has a legitimate beef.
So my question is this: given the role of the primaries now in the selection of our next president, is it not time for certain legal reforms to make sure the primary and nominating process is what most people would call fair and honest? or - have we not gone beyond the stage in our history where we simply leave the parties alone to do their thing as private entities outside the law despite their amazing impact on government itself and who will eventually hold office?
One of the good things that is coming out of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns is that people are beginning to see that some of the state primary delegate selections rules are not exactly what some people would call as fair. With the proliferation of primaries over the last twenty years - today a vast majority of convention delegates come from the primary process unlike decades ago when only a minority were.
I would suggest that primary voters expect that their vote determines who from their state goes to the convention and who they vote for. The reality is that does not always turn out that way - and that is by intentional design where party power brokers still want a large voice in the process.
But political parties are not part of the Constitution and generally exist outside of legal regulation and control on purpose. But at the same time, states give over ballot access to the parties convention nominees and there is a close relationship between them.
And we hear Trump complaints about Colorado and a few theory states where the Cruz people appear to be picking his pocket of delegates and Sanders complains about the super delegates which resonates with some voters. Even Trump says Sanders has a legitimate beef.
So my question is this: given the role of the primaries now in the selection of our next president, is it not time for certain legal reforms to make sure the primary and nominating process is what most people would call fair and honest? or - have we not gone beyond the stage in our history where we simply leave the parties alone to do their thing as private entities outside the law despite their amazing impact on government itself and who will eventually hold office?
Yes - but at the same time government makes a huge accommodation to parties by allowing them automatic ballot access for every election. I would think that could be used as some sort of leverage in this entire issue.
Lets face it - even though the parties are private concerns - they also have a few toes over the line into government. So in some ways they are neither fish nor fowl.
Yes - but at the same time government makes a huge accommodation to parties by allowing them automatic ballot access for every election. I would think that could be used as some sort of leverage in this entire issue.
Lets face it - even though the parties are private concerns - they also have a few toes over the line into government. So in some ways they are neither fish nor fowl.
One of the good things that is coming out of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns is that people are beginning to see that some of the state primary delegate selections rules are not exactly what some people would call as fair. With the proliferation of primaries over the last twenty years - today a vast majority of convention delegates come from the primary process unlike decades ago when only a minority were.
I would suggest that primary voters expect that their vote determines who from their state goes to the convention and who they vote for. The reality is that does not always turn out that way - and that is by intentional design where party power brokers still want a large voice in the process.
But political parties are not part of the Constitution and generally exist outside of legal regulation and control on purpose. But at the same time, states give over ballot access to the parties convention nominees and there is a close relationship between them.
And we hear Trump complaints about Colorado and a few theory states where the Cruz people appear to be picking his pocket of delegates and Sanders complains about the super delegates which resonates with some voters. Even Trump says Sanders has a legitimate beef.
So my question is this: given the role of the primaries now in the selection of our next president, is it not time for certain legal reforms to make sure the primary and nominating process is what most people would call fair and honest? or - have we not gone beyond the stage in our history where we simply leave the parties alone to do their thing as private entities outside the law despite their amazing impact on government itself and who will eventually hold office?
I believe the party should be allowed to override their voters. It's dangerous for them to do so and will cost them, but it is necessary, IMO.
Sanders is not even a Democrat. He has poor history of working with them, as he is more of a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. So, that the party would choose to stop his insurgency makes perfect sense to me.
Trump is barely a Republican. In fact, many people argue quite effectively that he is not one. So, that the party wants to stop him also makes sense.
We do not need a law. Party interference, especially as will undoubtedly be the case in the GOP this year, will cost the party in the general election. That's the price paid. And, that's where the seeds of real change will be sown.
Of course they should be able to determine their candidate. The problem occurs because they stage an election which, this year has shown what a sham it is. They shouldn't do that. If they are going to be the final arbiters of who is nominee, then they should be the only ones.
Usually the sham works out. But, this year, with 18 candidates running for the GOP, a lot of votes were split and the biggest nut got the most votes--albeit nowhere near the majority of them all. This is what would happen if we had multiple mainstream parties, btw. Some nut would win because too many normal candidates would split the vote.
I would support the banning of political parties.
This Amendment, proposed by Rabbi Michael Lerner and Peter Gabel, has been refined and advanced through the work of the NSP. After reading the Q&A, please visit the Resources for ESRA Activists page to see how you can get involved!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?