- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA moving toward closed primaries
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:25 pm to RobbBobb
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:25 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Why would anyone want indies to decide which DEMOCRAT and which REPUBLICAN is their parties representative?
Why are you so associated with your party over logic?
In a jungle primary, the party becomes less relevant because you'll be deciding over multiple candidates from the same party. Choosing the best person (in your opinion) is logical. Forcing this into a party lens is illogical.
There are races where a party doesn't get a rep using the jungle primary. DEMs are the most vulnerable to this. Why do you want to strengthen DEM representation in elections?
2
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:27 pm to doubleb
quote:
We have a closed primary coming up on March 23rd. Only Republicans and Democrats are voting. Are you and Russian outraged? No, because you are use to it because that’s how we pick our electors per the Constitution.
It's an inferior system.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Because they have been brainwashed that "party" comes first.
Why are you so associated with your party over logic?
Just like the Communist Party. Just like the National Socialist Party.
They can't think for themselves so they follow the other lemmings off the cliff just because a candidate has a (D) or an (R) behind their name on the ballot.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
You're still confused.
I’m not confused.
On March 23rd there is a Presidential Preference Primary. Combined with a Municipal Primary.
The election is closed and delegates to the party convention are chosen. Initially I said electors, but I was wrong about that.
Independents can’t vote in either the Republican or Dem primaries. Each is closed.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:34 pm to LSURussian
I'm legit curious how much of this is brain melting over RDS. Your major supporters of this closed primary system seem to be people who melted down the most about RDS the past few months. Rob in particular debased himself.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:36 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I'm not guessing. I know for a fact one Repulican-leaning, conservative voter who won't be voting in the general election if his first choice to be in the general election fails to make the run-off. That's a fact, not a "guess."
Are you going to vote for President if your first choice doesn’t win the nomination from La.?
My guy lost in 2016 but I voted Trump in the general.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's an inferior system.
To what?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:49 pm to doubleb
quote:
To what?
The LA jungle primary, which is a system based much more in freedom and representative electors.
Closed primaries are anti-liberty in order to protect political parties. A system our founding fathers would be appalled to see. Closed primaries are a symptom of a failed system. Our elections should be blind to parties entirely.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Closed primaries are anti-liberty in order to protect political parties. A system our founding fathers would be appalled to see. Closed primaries are a symptom of a failed system. Our elections should be blind to parties entirely.
Tell that to the Founders. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and on and on were in parties.
We have a freedom of association. Like minded people have a tight to associate, form a party if desired, and decide to work together for common goals.
There are good arguments for closed systems and my friends here have advanced done good reasons for an option system; but your idea that political parties are anti liberty is terribly flawed.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 2:15 pm to doubleb
Anytime incumbent politicians start changing election or voting laws my first reaction is always to determine how the changes would help the incumbents remain in power.
If you favor term-limits, which I do, then you should oppose closed primaries because those elections favor incumbents staying in power. Closed primaries don't guarantee incumbents get re-elected but it greatly improves their chances of getting re-elected.
That's why the legislature easily passed the revised election procedures. That's why open primaries are unheard of in all the other states.
Politicians in power want to stay in power. If they can do that by limiting who can vote, then that's what they will do.
And I think that is enough reason by itself to oppose closed primaries.
If you favor term-limits, which I do, then you should oppose closed primaries because those elections favor incumbents staying in power. Closed primaries don't guarantee incumbents get re-elected but it greatly improves their chances of getting re-elected.
That's why the legislature easily passed the revised election procedures. That's why open primaries are unheard of in all the other states.
Politicians in power want to stay in power. If they can do that by limiting who can vote, then that's what they will do.
And I think that is enough reason by itself to oppose closed primaries.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 2:29 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Anytime incumbent politicians start changing election or voting laws my first reaction is always to determine how the changes would help the incumbents remain in power.
I agree
quote:
If you favor term-limits, which I do, then you should oppose closed primaries because those elections favor incumbents staying in power. Closed primaries don't guarantee incumbents get re-elected but it greatly improves their chances of getting re-elected.
We have term limits now for many if not most state and local offices. I wish we had them fir Congress, but right now it’s a mixed bag.
If I had to choose between term limits or closed primaries; it would be term limits by a long shot.
You make some good points, it’s been a good discussion unlike most we see here.
Landry is pushing this. I didn’t vote Landry so I’m not defending him. He really needs to explain his position,
Personally I have always liked closed primaries. I think letting all Republicans go at each other helps them distinguish themselves before having to mess with a Democrat.
I remember Rispone got slammed for challenging Abraham in that debate. That was said to be bad form. He was only supposed to go up against JBE.
If it was a closed primary people may have understood that job one was to that he(Rispone) was the best candidate. Attacking each other was the natural thing to do in that format. Then he or Abraham could go against JBE later.
Who knows?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 3:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
There are good arguments for closed systems
Still waiting for you to state one.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 3:02 pm to doubleb
quote:
If it was a closed primary people may have understood that job one was to that he(Rispone) was the best candidate.
I was mostly kidding in earlier pages on this point but you actually do think that closed primaries will magically eliminate the sour grape factor in the GOP. Goodness.
This post was edited on 1/21/24 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 1/21/24 at 3:02 pm to doubleb
quote:
We have a freedom of association.
I never said parties should be illegal
quote:
Like minded people have a tight to associate, form a party if desired, and decide to work together for common goals.
Cool. That comment has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
We are talking about the degree to which governments use election laws to protect those associations. The most rational and logical system is an electoral system that is blind to parties. That system, funny enough, also promotes liberty the strongest.
quote:
but your idea that political parties are anti liberty is terribly flawed.
I never said political parties are anti-liberty
Go back and re-read what you quoted and think
Posted on 1/21/24 at 3:09 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Still waiting for you to state one.
I have repeatedly.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 3:10 pm to doubleb
quote:
have repeatedly.
No. You’ve just said over and over again that you want Republicans to have a closed primary, then concluded that magically that process wouldn’t result in Republicans sitting out the general election out of pettiness. Which of course makes no sense at all.
You have yet to even try and state how a closed system benefits other than incumbent GOP politicians and their chosen successors.
This post was edited on 1/21/24 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 1/21/24 at 5:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You have yet to even try and state how a closed system benefits other than incumbent GOP politicians and their chosen successors.
We just had a Governor elected in an open primary system. He was endorsed estly by the party leadership before other viable candidates had a shot. He wasn’t an incumbent, but he got the party nod giving him a big advantage over all the others.
Closed primaries were originated to stop party bosses from dominating the election process.
You have yet to even try and state how a closed system benefits other than incumbent GOP politicians and their chosen successors.
Exactly how would a closed primary help the incumbent? Please explain? If the voters were dissatisfied with the incumbent, couldn’t they rally behind another candidate from their psrty? He then would have to run in the general election just as he does now. Maybe I’m missing something.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 5:25 pm to doubleb
quote:
Jim, that’s not right, in a general election everyone votes.
Not if the candidates are from one party.
Think about legislative or judicial districts in New Orleans. With this closed primary, republicans and third parties are irrelevant.
Same for a conservative suburban district. Demos and third parties (including independents) don't get to vote...at all.
New Orleans House district:
Candidate 1 - Mary (D)
Candidate 2 - Tom (D)
And no republican candidates.
Tom beats Mary.
Tom doesn't have a general election because there is no other candidate at that point. Dem wins with no input from voters in general.
This is VERY different than a presidential primary. There will always be candidates from the other party in a national election. So everyone will get a chance to vote.
At lower levels of government, that is a lot less rare.
Posted on 1/21/24 at 5:34 pm to BigJim
[quote]Think about legislative or judicial districts in New Orleans. With this closed primary, republicans and third parties are irrelevant. [/quote
Isn’t it that way now? Do Republicans get elected to anything in NO?
I know here in BR in done districts Republicans don’t run. They have no shot.
Do open primaries matter in those cases?
Isn’t it that way now? Do Republicans get elected to anything in NO?
I know here in BR in done districts Republicans don’t run. They have no shot.
Do open primaries matter in those cases?
Posted on 1/21/24 at 6:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you want to strengthen DEM representation in elections?
Because in a closed primary you as less likely to get milquetoast candidates like JBE. Someone who passes them off as semi-conservative, when theyre not, at all
They have to first get past the liberal wackos in their primary. So they then cant claim what they said in the primary, was just rhetoric
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News