30th June 2016, 8:58 PM
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Full disclosure, I haven't seen a televised ad in over a year. I have Netflix and ad-free Hulu. When I say I haven't seen any political ads, I'm actually talking about my past experience in Oklahoma, not my current experience.Ah. I don't watch TV much anymore either, yeah. Between Youtube, other online streaming video things, etc, you don't need it much anymore...
In Oklahoma, when I want to get information on candidates, including presidential, I watch the news, or more commonly the comedy news (where more people get their news than... probably should). But, in reality, I tend to get much MORE information outside of TV, on the internet, where I can also watch the Daily Show.
Quote:This is EXACTLY why "closed primaries" are a bad idea. You can talk about how the parties should be allowed to exclude outsiders all you want, but there are REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES for that sort of policy!Having candidates who actually reflect their party is the best possible kind of "real world consequence". And if you want a say, join the party. There are literally zero reasons not to.
Weltall Wrote:[COLOR=#333333]Absolutely not. Closed primaries serve to ensure that the people who actually support a party are the ones whose views are reflected in their nominees. If you are planning on supporting a party, then JOIN THAT PARTY! It's free and extremely easy to do, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to not join the party you identify with. I have no sympathy for your and DJ's arguments here because there is literally no reason to not just join a party and have as much influence over primary elections as every other party member: a vote.
Because the results of those elections, rather than staying internal, eventually affect the entire country. Closed primaries exist for only one reason: to ensure that the people who are in control of the party suffer as little challenge as possible. Closed primaries protect the elite, so that they can continue to be the quasi-nobility they feel entitled to be.
Quote: It's not any different in practice from requiring ID to vote and I feel exactly the same about proponents of both policies. The point is to disenfranchise. And it works.This is a crazy, insulting comparison! Voter-ID laws exist to make it so that fewer people who are likely to support the Democratic Party vote. That is their reason for existence. These rules can be hard for people because they require things which certain voters are unlikely to have.
For now.
Closed primaries, however, exist so that a party's members, the people who care enough about it to join, are the ones whose views are reflected in their candidates. Any voter can be a party member for free, all you do is just check a box on the voter-registration card. Calling this somehow similar to voter-ID laws is ludicrous.
Here is why Markos Mouslitsas, kos of the Daily Kos, supports closing all primaries:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/06/20...-primaries
Quote:Close all primaries, certainly. If you want to participate in a primary, pick a party. If you are too good or pure or perfect or iconoclastic to be a member of a party, then you don’t get a primary choice. Simple enough. Don’t worry! You still get to vote in November. And everyone will ooh and ahh at your rugged individualism and give you ponies and blue ribbons. But party members should get to choose their party leadership. (And eventually, I hope the party takes over the entire process for itself, which would simplify pretty much everything.)
He is absolutely right.