The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 09:56:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread  (Read 66863 times)
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


« on: February 29, 2012, 09:05:33 PM »

I'm all for states doing whatever they want in these types of situations, but I would like to see the Ohio plan adopted by the GOP.  It would give less wealthy candidates a chance and still mandate that larger states have more pull.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2012, 09:15:58 PM »

According to Wikipedia [citation needed] Ohio is a "semi-closed" primary.  Is that true, and if so, what does that mean?

It's a "closed" primary in the sense that only registered Republicans can vote in it, but if a non-Republican shows up and asks for a ballot they get one as their party registration will be changed to Republican.
[/quote

That's another thing I can't stand along with early voting. Republicans should vote in the GOP primary and Democrats should vote in their primary. Independents must wait until election day. This prevents people from rigging each other's primaries. I know states should decide most things, but in this case I'm actually considering favoring the federal government being involved.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2012, 12:59:19 AM »

That's another thing I can't stand along with early voting. Republicans should vote in the GOP primary and Democrats should vote in their primary. Independents must wait until election day. This prevents people from rigging each other's primaries. I know states should decide most things, but in this case I'm actually considering favoring the federal government being involved.

If the parties want to control who selects their candidates, they need to start paying for their primaries themselves instead of having the taxpayers foot the bill.  So long as this independent taxpayer is being forced to pay for the political activities of the major parties, then the parties will just have to put up with me voting in their primaries.

I think the parties should pay for their primaries 100%. I'm completely against alot of soft money too but that's a different story lol.
Logged
Tidewater_Wave
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 519
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2012, 10:23:42 PM »

I take part of my comment about 100% back. If you think about it, it's tax dollars that fund the general election and tax dollars that fund both primaries. Both parties have a chance to vote in their own primaries. As Americans we have a duty to cooperate with the election process the same as politicians have a duty to leave office when voted out. Parties paying for their primaries partly is fine but tax dollars already fund the general election and it's not like anyone in either party is excluded from their own party. One vote each election and one vote each primary within one's party.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.