Hill-think

just corporatists and fanboys/fangirls.

Maybe if we all showed up with pitchforks & torches...

Heres a better idea: run for office.

Everyone should instead run for office?

Which office are you running for?

It would require more money than I have access to. I have served on boards of non-profits and various volunteer organizations, but actual office seeking (at least where I live) is a big-money endeavor. I do have a friend who is a state legislator and she spends more time fund-raising than she does at the statehouse. Not her fault, she's a great rep, but in a competitive district with many individuals who challenge her in the primary ( and then there's always a fatcat GOP opponent in November.

.


How better to attract people into the party?

It doesn't leave a bitter taste with undeclared/Indys wanting to switch affiliations and being denied.


.

Bernie's not a "real Democrat"

His supporters aren't "real democrats."

People who haven't previously declared party loyalty aren't allow to be "real democrats" and vote in primaries.

So which is it? Check the little box or the political equivalent of the Masonic Lodge?

If you can accuse Clinton of flip flopping or "evolving" on issues then why should we accept somebody flip flopping on his entire political identity?

Political packaging and stances in issues are two different things.

Issues affect people and society.

Suppose Sanders had chosen to be "consistent" and pull a Nader this year. The same people accusing him for being an interloper would be attacking him for being a spoiler.

His biggest sin for some people is simply that he's not Clinton.

“It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party.”

“The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity.”

“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?”

etc

most closely aligned with my beliefs. But it's getting increasingly difficult to vote carrying a barf bag and holding my nose since the party has moved so far right since 1972.
When the corporations became more important than the people to the leadership, I found myself more and more on the outs with them. Unfortunately it doesn't leave me anywhere to go.

Hill-think is hilarious!

Do they run discounting strategies? You do know that very few Costco stores are unionized? No? Well, you do now!

@ corporate Hillthink

Costco has a check box on the federal return?

When Costco has private, internal leadership nomination the taxpayers pick up the tab?

Costco decides who is on our public ballots?

Costco is designated on the ballot?

Costco is allowed to collude with Sam's Club to determine debate access, rules, formats, and topics?


I don't give a shit how the Tom Cruise fan club elects it's officers because it has nothing to do with dictating the ballots the self governance of our citizens.

Ok, fine.

Fully fund your own primaries, no tax forms check list, no party line voting options, no party designation on ballots.

It would be exclusive if people wanted to join and the DNC said, "No, you are not allowed to register as a Democrat." I only had to say I was a Democrat and I was in.

And balloons for the kiddies

Hard to fathom why some don't get that.

not the taxpayer of the state.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

a tent so big even a herd of elephants would fit in it.

~stinky pile of elephant shit here

Even a child would understand that!

They are technically private organizations, but they have a de facto semi-governmental role as gatekeepers of the political process. In some cases their advantages are even written into law.

It is dishonest to ignore this reality.

Blocking independents from primaries is locking us out from meaningful participation in choosing our representatives.

A slighly extreme example will illustrate the point. In some places, like many cities, that are overwhelmingly dominated by one party, the real election happens inside the party primary, and the official November election is almost just a formality.

You can't just start a political party and expect to complete when this kind of situation exists.

The most important thing is we have to make sure people have a right to participate in democracy for decisions that effect our lives. The two parties have become the de facto gatekeepers of the process.

If you want to have meaningful participation in how a political party picks the nominee that is representing that particular party, then join the party. Its really not that complicated a concept.

One with a D, one with an R.

It's actually more complicated than you guys are letting on.

If you want to have a totally private club, OK, but then I think we should stop all taxpayer support and special ballot privileges for your private club.

Unless you think its fake unless I get to vote not only in the Democratic primary but also in the Republican Primary. And any other primary. And in any caucus or convention. And why should I be limited to my state? After all the candidate being chosen isn't running for President of my state, he or she is running for president of the whole country.

And if you want to stop public support for political parties, then I assume you also are opposed to public funding of political campaigns. After all, why should taxpayers pay for anything other than the costs of setting up the polling booths and printing the ballots. Advertising on behalf of a party's candidate should be paid for by the parties, without any limits right? After all, they're just "private" groups to you.

Let a candidate convince voters to fund his or her campaign beyond the basics you present.

Sanders has proven that it is possible even without the quid pro quo of the Iron Triangle.

You must be overjoyed with Citizens United.

Citizens United is an abomination and only one candidate in this primary is overjoyed by it and using it for all she is fucking worth.

If both the GOP and Democratic Party start playing this 'private club' game, such that independents are becoming more and more disenfranchised, then one of two outcomes is assured.

Pull public funding so that the parties must cover primary costs and candidates must make their individual cases to the voters to fund said campaigns.

Or if all states agree that it is time for open primaries then public funding can continue still with the caveat that each candidate must raise their own funds independent of 'bundling' via CU.

I couldn't be more balanced or clear.

I'm asking why is it that the government sucks. Why is it that the views of ordinary people have no impact on government policy? It's clear that the two party monopoly on the political process, the way they function as gatekeepers into the political process, that's part of the problem. Because they exclude people with views that are very popular but threaten the powerful special interests that fund the parties. I see a power conflict between grass roots democracy on one hand and established capitalist political parties on the other hand.

The primaries are the first round of a two stage election. It's a de facto public election. You can say the Parties are "private organizations" all you want. But it doesn't change the reality that they are enormously powerful. And power has to be accountable to democracy.

It's not enough to give people a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich every other November. We have to be able to participate and have more than just a choice between two candidates that have already been selected for us. That's not enough democracy and we see the result of that is people have no confidence in the system. It's a joke. I don't want to fund elections unless I'm allowed to vote in them.

If you can't change things by joining the party, you certainly can't change them by staying outside the party.

If I want to vote I have to do two things. Join the party in whose selection process I want to participate. And then participate. If I don't want to participate I can achieve that end in either of two ways. Not join the party or join the party but not participate.

As far as not funding elections unless you can vote in them, my kid's school is a public institution. The building is a public building just like the building where I vote is a public building (in fact, its the same building). The teachers are publicly paid, just as the state-employee election officials who manage the election process are publicly paid. The construction paper my kids use in school for art projects is publicly paid, just as the paper ballot I fill out is publicly paid for. Taxpayer dollars. But the kid down the street who is homeschooled, and the one around the corner whose parents have enrolled her in private school -- those kids don't get to not enroll in the school but come play on the field during school hours or vote in student council elections. Even though the playing field is paid for with my neighbor's taxes and even though everything about the student election process also is paid for with my neighbor's taxes.

We fund roads, I don't drive on them. That's good. I voted for the library money. I never use the library, but it's good anyway.

But I don't want to pay for you party primaries because your party is corrupt and elitist, extremely dominated by wealthy special interests, it's one part of a bigger system that I don't like, internally it's not very democratic, and it doesn't let me vote in their primaries.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional or anything. I'm just saying that we should cut off funding. Just like we should cut off funding for cluster bombs.

You named a bunch of example of things I do like to justify funding for something I don't like. That's not very convincing.

don't think too highly about the public school so they choose not to have their kid go, but they still have to pay the same taxes as the parents whose kids do go to school.

The fact that you personally don't like something is irrelevant. I'm a big supporter of publicly funded campaigns, even though I may not end up having my candidate in the race.

Huh? It's relevant to me.

I don't like funding corrupt, elitist political parties. I do like funding libraries and schools. I don't like funding cluster bombs and NSA mass surveillance.

Opinions are just as relevant because this is a public forum designed to discuss these opinions, and for other purposes probably.

That's all I'm saying is that we shouldn't subsidize corrupt, elitist, anti-democratic political parties. Why is that a controversial statement at all?

You said

to make what should be a very simple choice of party. that is it. it take no time, no money, just an X in a box.
if choosing Dem or GOP three months in advance is too tough of a decision, then fuck it- wait for the general.

in advance. Before you even know who the candidates will be, or what the issues will be.

It's totally unfair to exclude so many people from what what is really the first round of the elections.

I don't have a problem with it if it's same day registration. But having to register months ahead of time is really unfair and it excludes many people.

not worth allowing to make important decisions for people who are actually trying to build something. Just a tiny bit of commitment is required. Same as working to make changes in the system. You'd have to actually work to do that.

Stuff like this.

Excluding people. It's creating monsters like Trump. People are hurting. They don't what to do. The government doesn't represent the people. That two party monopoly on the system is part of the problem. We have to find ways to allow people to vote. Let us vote in the first round of the election. And that's the primary.

spur of the moment decisions, but planning and creating coalitions to achieve things. People seem disinterested in doing that- those are no the values I grew up with, so I don't get it. It is a privilege to vote, and I have always voted as best I can.

You said

... work with what you've got, or come on in and join us in making a the system we have a better one.

You won't have much (any?) success repairing, improving, and redecorating the house we live in if you're only willing stand on the sidewalk and complain about how much you'd hate living here.

And they vote twice.

necessarily supporting the votes of the Democratic Party rank and file. Translation: if you're "someone," your opinion matters more than the average Democratic voter. If it didn't, that vote wouldn't have the power to negate thousands of other votes.

A typical membership organization sets the terms of its own membership. For example, the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of racial discrimination applies to public accommodations. No one can run a whites-only lunch counter. If, however, you want to start the Association To Take Our Country Back and exclude blacks from your new membership organization, that's perfectly legal.

Political parties, however, are different. Because of their role in public elections, they are not treated as private membership organizations that can set their own internal rules. Obviously, they have some flexibility, but not as much as the local stamp club or other private organizations. Thus, a political party is not allowed to restrict participation in its primaries to whites. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).

If what you have in mind is the exclusion of unaffiliated/independent voters, then it should be borne in mind that the eligibility of independents is usually decided by the state legislature, with the same rule for both parties, not by the parties themselves. Furthermore, that particular exclusion has been held to be permissible. But it's wrong to state or imply that a political party is just another private membership organization.

No checked boxes, no secret handshakes, no blood tests.

It's quite liberating for people who like to think for themselves.

Must be frustrating for you.

I've come to expect they will do so with regularity. 2016 being one of the best exhibitions of it since '68.

The whole point of those laws was to prevent people from participating in the election process. To control the election outcome.
Yes, it's at the candidate selection phase, the most important part of that process.

At the end of the day, it's about power. The power to control the outcome.

I have yet to have a single person give me a competent answer as to how Party registration is the be all, end all solution to the Party's issues with losing elections
What, does filling out a little card bound that person into servitude to the Democratic Party?
They are free to change it the next day.
Get the hint, signing a card does not make you a Democrat. Being inclusive, fighting for people, and adaptation make us more viable.