DNC doesn’t need to even have primaries. The political parties aren’t public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC’s rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I’m assuming you mean might where you put ‘foundy’. I don’t know how that got there but I’m guessing a phone keyboard.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
If a state passes a law saying “All ice cream must be free.” don’t be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.
Sure you could easily argue that NH rules that they be first is stupid. And I agree with that, but it is also a bad look to take away that state’s say in the process for that reason. If your state political party said your votes don’t count and we are ignoring them, wouldn’t you get kind of perturbed? The people of NH have little to no say in what their legislature does. It’s not really fair to them that their primary votes don’t count because the DNC said so.
It’s stupid that primaries aren’t all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you’re in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won’t have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you’ll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
It’s ‘fair’ because you just accept that they’re the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There’s a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It’s very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
DNC doesn’t need to even have primaries. The political parties aren’t public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC’s rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I’m assuming you mean might where you put ‘foundy’. I don’t know how that got there but I’m guessing a phone keyboard.
The problem here is the state law having any say in an intra-party election. That shouldn’t be a thing.
Then run it on private property with private workers.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
If a state passes a law saying “All ice cream must be free.” don’t be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.
Sure you could easily argue that NH rules that they be first is stupid. And I agree with that, but it is also a bad look to take away that state’s say in the process for that reason. If your state political party said your votes don’t count and we are ignoring them, wouldn’t you get kind of perturbed? The people of NH have little to no say in what their legislature does. It’s not really fair to them that their primary votes don’t count because the DNC said so.
I wouldn’t be perturbed at Ben & Jerry’s for avoiding the state lol. I’d be perturbed at the people we elected to write those laws.
It’s stupid that primaries aren’t all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
Agree 100%.
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you’re in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won’t have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you’ll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
It’s ‘fair’ because you just accept that they’re the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There’s a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It’s very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
The ruling party should have primaries every election. The person in the office isn’t always who the people want to keep that position.
But the other potential candidates all died of old age, they’re running out of boomers to elect!