All state primaries on the same day

[WMS]

There shouldn't be primaries in the first place.  The parties are private orgs and shouldn't be allowed to use government resources to hold an election for their leaders.  If your local Bridge Club started demanding to have a primary for their leaders we'd all laugh at them and tell them to go away.  We should do the same to the parties.

And closed primaries are adding insult to injury. I mean, the parties are using my tax money to run their primaries, and I, as an Independent, don't even get to vote in them? Isn't that a violation of some law? Either they let me vote or they can run their primaries on their own dime.

[WMS]

It also seems to me that where a primary is involved, it should be closed at least to the extent that adherents of other parties should NOT be allowed to participate in the nomination of another party's delegates to the national party convention.

Even still, using money collected from all taxpayers to fund primaries that only some taxpayers can vote in is BS. The parties should pay for their own primaries if they're closed.

[WMS]

Since my last posting, there have been several thoughtful observations, to which I will respond.

First, with respect to WMS and his opposition to public financed primaries limited either to declared party adherents, or simply closed to declared adherents of other parties.

Primaries were larely FORCED on the parties, NOT something they CHOOSE to use.  Indeed, the National Democrat party has refused to recognize state primaries that do NOT meet their rules.

Further, a significant number of delegates to the national party conventions are selected by other than primary (superdelegate, caucuses, state conventions, etc.)

So, if states want to have primaries to select delegates for the party national conventions, they have to abide by party rules.

Who forced the use of primaries? The national parties? And where does it say that the state has to pay for the parties' primaries?

And I don't care so much how the parties choose their convention delegates as long as I don't have to pay for it. The parties can run their own primaries if they want - in 2004 the NM Dems ran their own *president only* primary, at their own expense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A good idea, although if you want to cut the costs you're going to have to make the tremendously uncooperative Post Office mail them for free. We kind of have that with the guides the League of Women Voters puts out, although details are scarce and not nearly enough questions are asked.

[WMS]

Who forced the use of primaries? The national parties? And where does it say that the state has to pay for the parties' primaries?

And I don't care so much how the parties choose their convention delegates as long as I don't have to pay for it. The parties can run their own primaries if they want - in 2004 the NM Dems ran their own *president only* primary, at their own expense.

This was actually done in response to voter demands.  The first was down in Western PA at about the turn of the last century.  Now, they are provided for in party rules.

...while shutting out those who aren't in either party or are in minor parties, while still making us pay for them. Not to mention all the ways the two parties discriminate against independents and third party candidates (check the varying signature requirements, for example). Yet more reasons to dislike the two-party system...

[WMS]

I am very sympathetic to the rights of third parties.

We definitely should change laws which discriminate against third parties.

In my state the Libertarians regularly participate in, and occasionally have very competitive, primaries.

I personally favor a system which last time I checked was in effect in Colorado.  Under that system, a candidate can be placed in nomination simply by winning the endorsement of the elected party officials (typically precinct committemen) but can also be placed on the primary ballot by petition.

It would help, to be sure. But how about indies?

[WMS]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

But, my point stands: while the parties can decide their own candidates however they like, I think it is wrong that I get taxed to run them! Either the parties pay for their own selection processes or they let the rest of us vote on them.

[WMS]

I agree.

I was just pointing out a system where independents could nominate a candidate of their own via the petition process.

I maintain that the parties should decide whether they want to allow independents to vote in their primary.

They do.  In some states it's done by party rules.  In some, like PA, it's done by statute, but the legislature takes care of it.

But, my point stands: while the parties can decide their own candidates however they like, I think it is wrong that I get taxed to run them! Either the parties pay for their own selection processes or they let the rest of us vote on them.

Take it up with your state legislators.  The can choose to do it that way.

Well, that's a lost cause then - they have consistently NOT done things for the greater good of anyone.

[WMS]

There are two seperate and distinct concepts.

First, the government 'forced' parties in many areas to employ the 'primary' system to nominate its candidates for public office.  It was not the case (as you seem to believe) that the parties went to the government (at least with respect fo primaries) and said,
'subsidize our candidate selection process,'

However, the Supreme Court has (rightly in my opinion) held that under the concept of freedom of association, the parties cannot be compelled to include non-adherents in its selection process.

The worst of all worlds, I see - taxation without representation. I knew there was something that felt wrong about this process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One: I favor runoffs in any event, especially that in many races the primary election is the ONLY contested part of it - Bernalillo County had three County Commission seats open and ALL THREE had primary races only! Pretty pathetic level of democracy.

Two: OK. If they fund their own selection processes they can choose their candidates however they please.