McCain Takes The Primary Again

[Ayatollahgondola]

Well, if this isn't discouraging, I don't know what is. McCain is once again the favorite son of the state senate thus far. If this trend holds true, California will once again have Boxer, and in '12 the US will get Obama again.
I'd like to blame the voters, but after spending some time recently digging into public records surrounding the elections here, I actually don't believe the ballot box anymore. Recent changes are now going to allow more time for College students to vote, as if they hadn't already been given extra time on some campuses with voting early. We print our ballots in foreign tongue, wink at actual vote fraud when it happens, and don't really look very hard when mischief is suspected. Why should I believe McCain is citizens choice? Arizona was so overrun with foreigners they had to pass a law to remind them they were not in control. So what the hell happened? the majoriy of Arizona'ns picked border security and immigration enforcement when SB1070 came around, but now they pick an open borders duplicitous fraud like McCain? Sumpin' ain't right here....ain't right at all

[Rim05]

I have not been posting anythhing about the election but that does not mean I am not paying attention.
Months ago I looked at all the candidates and realize they are all the same. No matter what they do they will be elected again. Some of the new candidates, such as Whitman and Carley are worse the incumbents. And now McCain is sailing.
I did realize months ago that people were angry and going to 'throw all the bums out'. I can't see that helping if we vote more bums in. Better think before you vote.

[retiredat44]

Arizona must be on Mexican drugs.. re-electing McClown just boggles my mind..
I hope someone over there can explain wtf they are doing there regarding who they vote for and why?? WTF??
:eek::mad:

[Twoller]

Once again, term limits is what is missing here. And also, the primary system. This is a primary election that McCain has won, right? It's easy to miss and the fact that some Democrat was running at the same time confused the whole race.

Get the political parties off the public election gravy train. Take out the party affiliations of voter registration records. Make it a federal crime to ask what your party affiliation is for purposes of voter registration.

If Arizona Republicans had made the decision to pick a nominee in the private elections of the Arizona Republican party, would McCain still have made the nomination?

How many terms has this little rat served? If there had been term limits, how many different Republicans might have had a chance to make a contribution? Maybe even some Democrats might have done something good, who knows?

[Ayatollahgondola]

I don't think it's a problem for the parties to have primaries, but I don't see why that should preclude a candidate from being on the ballot because they lost a primary. Why shouldn't everyone have a chance to vote for every candidate? The claim is that it makes for a confusing ballot when multiple candidates from the same party compete in a general election, but I don't see why that should be reason enough to withhold a candidate after having gone through all the necessary steps to obtain status.

[ilbegone]

Term limits got rid of the Willie Brown political machine in California, but greatly contributed to the problems we have now.

"Legislators" who won't talk to each other and shaft one another at every opportunity, are deaf to the populace and are happy to "solve" the budget crisis by allowing California to nosedive into irreparable financial doom, and waste time on insignificant pet legislation which harms employment when we need jobs most.

Maybe term limits would work every half generation to clean out the rats and snakes, but having career politicians on permanent lame duck status in every elected position they temporarily occupy is hardly productive.

And I'm not really wild about our new open primary as it has been created, I'm sure it can be manipulated to our collective harm.

There may be merit in being registered as "voters" rather than as party members. At least twice to my recollection my Independent registration has been changed to another party - once from independent to Republican and most recently I have been changed from independent to Democrat.

This last primary I wasted no time in paying back the Democrats for fraudulently changing my registration by placing a vote for every loser on the democratic ticket I could, and wrote in a few like Francis the Talking Mule and Mr. Ed as part of the "minority" ticket.

Friggin' Jackasses.

[Twoller]

I don't think it's a problem for the parties to have primaries, but I don't see why that should preclude a candidate from being on the ballot because they lost a primary. Why shouldn't everyone have a chance to vote for every candidate? The claim is that it makes for a confusing ballot when multiple candidates from the same party compete in a general election, but I don't see why that should be reason enough to withhold a candidate after having gone through all the necessary steps to obtain status.

You've really failed to grasp the situation. Your way of thinking corresponds to the notion of "open primaries".

The reason that everyone should not have a chance to vote on every candidate in a primary is precisely because a nominee for the primary is strictly an affair for members of a political party. The Republicans have nothing to say about who is nominated for the Democrats and the Democrats have nothing to say about who is nominated for the Republicans.

This is how bad the "two party system" has gotten. We have people unable to distinguish what the primary elections are even about. This is why reforming them with "open primaries" where everyone can vote for any of the candidates in the primary is completely insane. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We already have an election following the primary where people can vote for whoever they want outside of the political parties. This is the election following the primary where the whole purpose of the primary election is supposed to be fulfilled and the nominees run for the actual office. It is even possible that there be a candidate in this race who never even showed up in the primaries. There is no legal requirement anywhere in the United States that says a political party must participate in any primary election. Furthermore, it is not even necessary for anyone running for office to belong to a political party at all.

This is how ridiculous the notion of an "open primary" is. In the last primary election last June here in California, a proposition passed to run "open primaries". It is a legal absurdity and one wonders how it even made it to the ballot.

Term limits got rid of the Willie Brown political machine in California, but greatly contributed to the problems we have now.

"Legislators" who won't talk to each other and shaft one another at every opportunity, are deaf to the populace and are happy to "solve" the budget crisis by allowing California to nosedive into irreparable financial doom, and waste time on insignificant pet legislation which harms employment when we need jobs most.

Maybe term limits would work every half generation to clean out the rats and snakes, but having career politicians on permanent lame duck status in every elected position they temporarily occupy is hardly productive.

And I'm not really wild about our new open primary as it has been created, I'm sure it can be manipulated to our collective harm.

There may be merit in being registered as "voters" rather than as party members. At least twice to my recollection my Independent registration has been changed to another party - once from independent to Republican and most recently I have been changed from independent to Democrat.

This last primary I wasted no time in paying back the Democrats for fraudulently changing my registration by placing a vote for every loser on the democratic ticket I could, and wrote in a few like Francis the Talking Mule and Mr. Ed as part of the "minority" ticket.

Friggin' Jackasses.

The "open primary" idea cannot last. All that needs to happen is that somebody step forward and run for an office here in California outside of a political party. Nobody who runs that way is going to run for two elections that would be the exact same race for that person. If term limits have had no positive consequence yet, then it is the primary system that is to blame and "open primaries" is a good way to try to cover up the culpability of the "two party system" in preventing the rot from flushing out of government. Sure we rotate the bad guys out, but the "two party system" remains and makes sure that the same kind of rot gets back in again when somebody is termed out.

But yes, there is a connection between the political primary system and the "two party system". They are two heads of the same monster that has taken over government throughout the US.

Get rid of the two party system. Term limits for all federally elected officials, at least, and criminalize recording party affiliation for purposes of voter registration.

It will work.

[Kathy63]

It would be pretty hard to get rid of the two major party system without putting some mechanisim in place for preventing people from voting to one of the two major parties.

I think ending the closed party system will be on the ballot in November so we'll see how many people forgot why we put in a closed party system in the first place.

Since most people vote for one of the two major parties, and you can't stop that from happening, an open primary assures that the weakest and most ill qualified win the primary for that party.

[Twoller]

It would be pretty hard to get rid of the two major party system without putting some mechanisim in place for preventing people from voting to one of the two major parties.

"... from voting to one of the two major parties."? What do you mean by that? All you have to do is get rid of listing party affiliation for purposes of voter registration, eliminating government records of party affiliation. It would then be the responsibility of the political parties to keep track of their own members and whether or not they belonged to more than one political party. And furthermore, if they did, that would strictly be the concern of the political party. Any attempts on the part of law or government to interfere with that would be a violation of the rights of a political party as a private organization. And that's what political parties are now, private organizations.

I think ending the closed party system will be on the ballot in November so we'll see how many people forgot why we put in a closed party system in the first place.

What is the "closed party system" and what is supposed to be on the November ballot regarding this? As far as I know, the "open primaries" initiative has already passed last June.

Since most people vote for one of the two major parties, and you can't stop that from happening, an open primary assures that the weakest and most ill qualified win the primary for that party.

You have completely missed the above discussion. It doesn't matter whether people vote for one of the two major parties. The problem is not the two major parties, it is the monopoly that the two parties, the "two party system" has on our government. The "two party system" is confusing itself with government and so is the public. Open primaries is an absurdity that further entrenches the "two party system".

[ilbegone]

But yes, there is a connection between the political primary system and the "two party system". They are two heads of the same monster that has taken over government throughout the US.

In the late 60's the Democrat and Republican parties were described as "a two headed goat which feeds from one trough" and a "third" party was formed in response to that belief - La Raza Unida.

That racial party crashed and burned, but its goals are now being realized through the Democrats.

Look at the California legislature since Willie Brown finally and deservedly got axed, how have "term limits" fixed our mess?

Not at all. Actually made them much, much worse.

What's the solution? Right now I can only think of the guillotine. But, what did that really do for France, beside kill lots of French citizens and, through Napoleon taking advantage of the turmoil under the guise of "revolution", plunge Europe into devastating war for many decades?

Will creating a third party help us, or hopeless divide our votes?