Skip to main content

View Diary: Paved with good intentions: The folly of 'open' electoral primaries (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why should parties have any power? (5+ / 0-)

    You have made an argument against primaries, whether open or closed.

    The GOP has chosen to drive me away from them because they have allowed bigots and fools to run the party for the benefit of the 0.1%. I strongly identify myself as a Democrat, now, but that doesn't mean that I want the party to control who the candidates will be.

    In Wisconsin, one of the problems with eight years of Doyle is that the far right didn't seem all that far right at the end of it. Doyle was progressive in a few areas, but in most areas he was not much different from Tommy Thompson.

    Americans can make our country better.

    by freelunch on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 10:00:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  To ask is to answer (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem, freelunch, pixxer, Chas 981

      George Washington was right.  Factions are bad for democracy.  Reducing governance to a team sport is bad for democracy.  Parties should be eliminated, and party-based positions in state/federal legislatures eliminated (Ranking Republican Member of X___, etc.).  

      But good luck convincing the party-based political power system to do that.

      •  You do realize... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marcus Graly

        Washington generally sided with the Federalists (even if he wasn't formally a member). Washington also had a view of the presidency that it really wasn't supposed to try to influence congress at all, and only veto bills that are blatantly unconstitutional, rather than take any active role in governance.

        Factions are an inevitable part of any democracy, and that's a good thing, people have legitimate disagreements with each other and a stake in getting legislation passed that advances their own policy goals (and that others want to stop).

        To put this another way, can you name me any democracy that doesn't have formal political parties?

        Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 27 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

        by NMLib on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 04:14:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Political Parties (0+ / 0-)

          "To put this another way, can you name me any democracy that doesn't have formal political parties?"

          Exactly. Well put, NMLib.

          The only ones that don’t have formal political parties? I can’t think of any. The ones with the weakest parties are generally the least democratic. When you don’t have political parties, power falls to other institutions, like churches/mosques, tribes/tribal groupings, city-states, militias, and a ton of other organizations that we probably don’t want running the government.

          The problem in America isn’t that we have 2 political parties, it’s that we only have 2 political parties, effectively.

          Yeah, sure, we have 3rd parties, but our system is effectively a 2-party system and always will be. It would be much more representative if there were 4 or 5 major parties. Sigh. If only.

          Kansan by birth, Californian by choice and Gay by the Grace of God.

          by arealmc on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 10:17:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You, as The Party, have a right to assist (0+ / 0-)

      in that choice, w/o the loyal opposition casting their vote in your primary.

      •  Only if you run the primary yourself (0+ / 0-)

        if you're using government funds to operate, you can't be an exclusive club.

        I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

        by happymisanthropy on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:41:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site