Comments on: Ferraro Op-Ed: Let The Handful Decide http://standsalone.org/blog/2008/02/27/ferraro-op-ed-let-the-handful-decide/ You've Got Some Free Time, Huh? Wed, 23 May 2012 21:21:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: brie http://standsalone.org/blog/2008/02/27/ferraro-op-ed-let-the-handful-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-1279 brie Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:11:23 +0000 http://standsalone.org/blog/2008/02/27/ferraros-op-ed-let-the-handful-decide/#comment-1279 Sara and I were both on gmail! <strong>me:</strong> going to reponsd to comment too but i'm not a card-carrying democrat the system ferraro advocates with time limits for voting means she doesn't want 18 year old democrats deciding on their nominee either that's pretty much going to be my comment <strong>6 minutes</strong> <strong>Sara:</strong> why not 18 year olds? i don't understand how the current system works, really <strong>me:</strong> what she said in the oped was that people should have to be part of the party for a period of time 17 year olds in some states, can register to vote in the primaries if they'd be 18 by the general it also doesn't allow for converts <strong>Sara: </strong>oh yes, that "period of time" thing is pretty ridiculous. I think one should be a party member to vote, but once you pay your dues and are registered as a member, you should have equal say as any other member, regardless of tenure. <strong>me: </strong>there are few people who are party members despite the two party system, we're pretty fluid <strong>Sara:</strong> i think i'm biased. i think a two party system is ridiculous, so i'm for any reform that would make more room for third/fringe parties to crop up ie: only party members vote for leaders. <strong>me:</strong> i suppose. I think that would just repress votes in the us though esp with membership dues you're not allowed to charge a poll tax, which is what that would essentially for primaries <strong>Sara: </strong>sure, but it's not a real election... <strong>me:</strong> well, the choices in the primaries directly affect the general and you go to your polling place <strong> Sara:</strong> i can see the benefit in everyone having a say over who the candidates are, but at the same time it really seems none of a republican's business who the democratic nominee is. [Talk about credit cards] <strong>me:</strong> yeah, but what if a republican is really excited about obama would like to vote for him should he be the nominee <strong>Sara: </strong>yeah, i guess that's a good point. Americans aren't as fiercely loyal to parties as Canadians are, I guess. <strong>me:</strong> wouldn't it be better to have him vote for O so that he's the nominee insteaad of clinton so he can pick his preferred candidate in the general? <strong>Sara:</strong> but then why bother with parties at all, really? <strong>me: </strong>fine by me. i think two party is stupid esp now that some 30 percent of the country are independents. i think it's so that someone wins a majority, though at least in theory <strong>Sara</strong>: yeah, if only democracy could work as well in practice as it should in theory. I didn't know the rate of 'independence' was so high. <strong>me: </strong>well it's not everywhere my beef with ferraro is that her vision of the party is based on exclusion rather than inclusion <strong>Sara: </strong>how does that compare to the republicans? i thought i heard they were rather exclusive? <strong>me:</strong> yeah, all their primaries are closed I think i'm wrong about that hang on it appears to be state-based wow. the niggling details of presidential primaries. aren't you glad you're getting paid for this? Sara and I were both on gmail!

me: going to reponsd to comment too
but i’m not a card-carrying democrat
the system ferraro advocates
with time limits for voting
means she doesn’t want 18 year old democrats deciding on their nominee either
that’s pretty much going to be my comment

6 minutes

Sara: why not 18 year olds? i don’t understand how the current system works, really

me: what she said in the oped was that people should have to be part of the party for a period of time
17 year olds in some states, can register to vote in the primaries if they’d be 18 by the general
it also doesn’t allow for converts

Sara: oh yes, that “period of time” thing is pretty ridiculous. I think one should be a party member to vote, but once you pay your dues and are registered as a member, you should have equal say as any other member, regardless of tenure.

me: there are few people who are party members
despite the two party system, we’re pretty fluid

Sara: i think i’m biased. i think a two party system is ridiculous, so i’m for any reform that would make more room for third/fringe parties to crop up ie: only party members vote for leaders.

me: i suppose. I think that would just repress votes in the us though
esp with membership dues
you’re not allowed to charge a poll tax, which is what that would essentially for primaries

Sara: sure, but it’s not a real election…

me: well, the choices in the primaries directly affect the general
and you go to your polling place

Sara: i can see the benefit in everyone having a say over who the candidates are, but at the same time it really seems none of a republican’s business who the democratic nominee is. [Talk about credit cards]

me: yeah, but what if a republican is really excited about obama
would like to vote for him should he be the nominee

Sara: yeah, i guess that’s a good point. Americans aren’t as fiercely loyal to parties as Canadians are, I guess.

me: wouldn’t it be better to have him vote for O so that he’s the nominee insteaad of clinton
so he can pick his preferred candidate in the general?
Sara: but then why bother with parties at all, really?

me: fine by me. i think two party is stupid
esp now that some 30 percent of the country are independents.
i think it’s so that someone wins a majority, though
at least in theory

Sara: yeah, if only democracy could work as well in practice as it should in theory. I didn’t know the rate of ‘independence’ was so high.

me: well it’s not everywhere
my beef with ferraro is that her vision of the party is based on exclusion rather than inclusion
Sara: how does that compare to the republicans? i thought i heard they were rather exclusive?

me: yeah, all their primaries are closed I think
i’m wrong about that
hang on
it appears to be state-based
wow. the niggling details of presidential primaries. aren’t you glad you’re getting paid for this?

]]> By: sara http://standsalone.org/blog/2008/02/27/ferraro-op-ed-let-the-handful-decide/comment-page-1/#comment-1278 sara Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:06:10 +0000 http://standsalone.org/blog/2008/02/27/ferraros-op-ed-let-the-handful-decide/#comment-1278 being completely outside of a two-party electoral system, i have to say it seems ridiculous to allow non-party members to vote for a party leader. Yeah, it's absolutely patronizing to tell "rank and file" members that they don't know enough to rationally pick a leader, but that's like telling the average american that they can't vote in the general election. but advocating open primaries in which republicans and independents can vote for the leader of the democratic party? contradicts logic to me. otherwise, what's the point of being a party member? being completely outside of a two-party electoral system, i have to say it seems ridiculous to allow non-party members to vote for a party leader. Yeah, it’s absolutely patronizing to tell “rank and file” members that they don’t know enough to rationally pick a leader, but that’s like telling the average american that they can’t vote in the general election. but advocating open primaries in which republicans and independents can vote for the leader of the democratic party? contradicts logic to me. otherwise, what’s the point of being a party member?

]]>