tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7213989426658261803..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Political Regulation and the PartiesJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-46942804864157869692012-03-09T10:28:04.552-06:002012-03-09T10:28:04.552-06:0050 billion? That sounds way too high.
I'd sa...50 billion? That sounds way too high.<br /><br />I'd say 3-5 billion top end.charlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91831661017633057952012-03-09T01:21:11.054-06:002012-03-09T01:21:11.054-06:00Good point, Ambi, but we could work to an Amendmen...Good point, Ambi, but we could work to an Amendment that went the other way, too.<br /><br />I think the biggest things that need to happen in law isn't control over the party or their actions, but <i>oversight</i> for fairness and legality as well as <i>scheduling</i> that is fair across the country.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62260271670944861252012-03-09T01:12:01.486-06:002012-03-09T01:12:01.486-06:00One possibility to give citizens more choice would...One possibility to give citizens more choice would be switching the election method for the House to Proportional Representation. That way, citizens could break up the two party system relatively easily compared to now.<br /><br />While the Constitution plus amendments specifies that every Senator is elected individually, for the House it defines only the requirements for candidates, that the seats are filled by election, and how the seats are distributed among the states. The election method - one plurality winner per district - is given in a normal law, not the Constitution. (And states had held at-large elections for multiple seats in the past)<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress won't change that law...Ambi Valenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488247852564879628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-51625086444833817612012-03-08T18:43:35.392-06:002012-03-08T18:43:35.392-06:00Professor Bernstein, are you familiar with Smith v...Professor Bernstein, are you familiar with Smith v. Allwright and Terry v. Adams? The Supreme Court, faced with "White Primaries" in the South that essentially decided officeholders (i.e., a de facto ONE party system), held that these sorts of elections were subject to constitutional scrutiny.<br /><br />Obviously the issue here is different, but it's an interesting historical backdrop to this argument.Dilan Esperhttp://www.twitter.com/dilanespernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79854574707595169032012-03-08T18:10:31.840-06:002012-03-08T18:10:31.840-06:00I'm with Lemieux on this - primaries are just ...I'm with Lemieux on this - primaries are just as important as general elections. If anything should be within the bounds of society's control, it should be how we choose our elected officials and representatives. Where I live, the primary and delegate-allocation process is dictated by state law. Of course, these laws are written by members of the major parties, but relying on state law does limit the potential for manipulating the system... besides, it's the principle of the matter ;)Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45746299978641347672012-03-08T17:52:56.497-06:002012-03-08T17:52:56.497-06:00If you stop and think about it ... the Democratic ...If you stop and think about it ... the Democratic and Republican Parties spend about $50 Billion every four years. EACH. When you take into account all the State and even local big city elections.<br /><br />That makes them $10+ Billion a year businesses.<br />And what is their product?<br />Votes.<br /><br />Think about it.<br />The Republican AND Democratic Party are in essence, legalized Bribe machines to the tune of billions of dollars a year.<br /><br />And you really want to defend them?Chromehawknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-52673888948727571172012-03-08T17:15:27.264-06:002012-03-08T17:15:27.264-06:00My first friend, the one who was offended at her a...My first friend, the one who was offended at her ability to express the franchise had been denied her in Republican primaries, I feel like the operative conclusion here is, The general election belongs to you as a citizen, it's yours and it is important to safeguard your rights as it pertains to the general election, or any election in your jurisdiction that puts a candidate into office. But the primaries don't belong to you as a citizen, they just don't. They belong to you only as a member of this or that political party. Again, I think this does clarify the issues involved here somewhat. If you're a Democrat, the Republican primary does not belong to you, and you have no intrinsic "right" to demand this or that when it comes to Republican primaries, and vice versa.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18440356770947146690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30882413017834577702012-03-08T17:02:42.027-06:002012-03-08T17:02:42.027-06:00I'm coming in a bit late here, so I hope my co...I'm coming in a bit late here, so I hope my comments aren't too off-point or haven't already been made. I am rather on your side here -- and one of the issues that rather clarifies the issue is the question of open versus closed primaries. I recently had a discussion with a young politically oriented friend of mine about open vs. closed primaries -- she regarded it as almost a desecration of democracy that Democrats can't vote in GOP primaries and vice versa. I, on the contrary, said that the whole practice irritates me greatly, and that the purpose of a Republican primary (in a year with no contest on the other side) is to find out which candidate Republicans prefer, and that it's highly improper for people of other ideological stripes to chime in and skew the vote. As we were discussing it, I hit on the phrase, "This is an internal party matter," which clarified my thoughts on the subject considerably. I have a friend who is a liberal and has registered as a Republican in order to do his tiny part in causing Republicans to nominate poor candidates -- the irony being, his GOP status prevented him from expressing his preference in the exciting Obama-Hillary race of 2008. As a registered Democrat, I was allowed to vote in that primary. Another thing going on here is that in the US tradition, "party members" are not asked for much -- in some central European countries, as a party member you have to pay dues, party membership helps greatly with getting certain jobs, and so forth. I'm not suggesting that the USA go in this direction, but the benefit of being able to dictate what happens in your favored party is a nice benefit that gets thrown out in an open system. There should be SOME benefit. In any case, a primary election has a double status as a part of the electoral system and as a part of each party's internal system. It's important that the elections be maintained to have the integrity of anything else in the electoral system, but beyond that, it's up to the parties. I think you're right on, the parties should not be expected to change their preferred system because of some external claim that the presidency is too important or what not. The parties know that, and they should be allowed to do what they want to do.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18440356770947146690noreply@blogger.com