Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Karmadillo

(9,253 posts)
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:31 PM Apr 2016

If we can keep enough people from voting, Hillary can win this thing! Justice Scalia,

not surprisingly, was a big fan of closed primaries. He would, no doubt, find New York pretty close to perfect. No same day registration. No independents voting. Party members only and no switching to the Democratic Party unless you did so by October 9, 2015. Too bad for all those folk who identify with neither party. It's all a form of disenfranchisement, of course, but in an oligarchy one has to expect that sort of thing. Take solace in the fact you independents get to participate in our democracy by paying the taxes that pay for the ballots and the voting machines and the poll workers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/03/it-s-disenfranchisement-when-independents-can-t-vote-in-primaries.html

It’s Disenfranchisement When Independents Can’t Vote in Primaries
by Linda Killian
04.03.14 12:39 PM ET

<edit>

About half the states in the country bar unaffiliated voters from participating in primary elections even though they pay for the process with their tax dollars. Informational election materials, ballots, voting machines, poll workers and ballot tabulation along with most polling places are financed by the public not political parties.

This closed primary system, controlled but not paid for by the Republican and Democratic parties, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 vote in 2000 that said open primaries violated the political parties First Amendment rights of free association. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia worried that an open primary in which non-party members were allowed to vote “could be enough to destroy the party."

Given the current state of polarization and dysfunction to which the two parties have helped drive our politics, I think a lot of Americans might consider that a good thing. Despite the court’s ruling though, more than half the states still do have open primaries that allow all registered voters to take part and I would argue every state should follow this model.

There are scores of polls showing record dissatisfaction and distrust with government and our two major parties and political system, undoubtedly a significant factor in declining participation rates in elections. Many voters have tuned out a dysfunctional political system they think leaves them out.

Especially Independents and young voters think politics is a rigged game controlled by the two parties and moneyed special interests and largely not worth their attention. The latest polling reveals that more than 50 percent of Millennials under the age of 33 now identify as Independents.

more...

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If we can keep enough people from voting, Hillary can win this thing! Justice Scalia, (Original Post) Karmadillo Apr 2016 OP
Looks like we're in the bargaining stage now. DanTex Apr 2016 #1
Still some carryover anger. nt LexVegas Apr 2016 #3
+ 1 JoePhilly Apr 2016 #7
no prob. just add a new primary for "independents". voila, a way for independents to vote in their msongs Apr 2016 #2
Simple, huh? 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #9
they disenfranchise themselves. nothing is stopping them from registering geek tragedy Apr 2016 #4
+ 1 JoePhilly Apr 2016 #8
Hey, JoePhilly ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #10
this is an insult to people who are really disenfranchised. wyldwolf Apr 2016 #5
Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case mentioned above. Ginsburg and Karmadillo Apr 2016 #6

msongs

(67,420 posts)
2. no prob. just add a new primary for "independents". voila, a way for independents to vote in their
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:34 PM
Apr 2016

very own primary where they don't have to actually stand for a party.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
4. they disenfranchise themselves. nothing is stopping them from registering
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:35 PM
Apr 2016

as a member of a party.

more whiny, sore loserist nonsense.

If you hate the Democratic party, don't whine that you don't get to pick its leader.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
10. Hey, JoePhilly ...
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:47 AM
Apr 2016

I want to play baseball for your local club team ... I don't want to actually join the team ... I don't want to come to the practices ... I won't be listening to you, as the coach and I won't be raising money for the team ... I'll just be setting the line-up and playing in the games. Okay?

Karmadillo

(9,253 posts)
6. Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the case mentioned above. Ginsburg and
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 08:25 AM
Apr 2016

Stevens dissented. That ol' 2000 Supreme Court sure knew how to work to undermine the will of the People.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party_v._Jones

<edit>

California Democratic Party v. Jones presented the following question: Does California's voter-approved Proposition 198, which changes its partisan primary from a closed primary to a blanket primary, violate political parties' First Amendment right of association?

In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Stevens wrote: "This Court's willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties' behest is an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States."

more...

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If we can keep enough peo...