Not wishing to declare party affiliation at poll (for primary election?) - Letter to Editor

Harald Democrat (Sherman, TX) ^ | 3/13/06 | John Reihart

[SoothingDave]

Ah, yes---the old "right to free association". Where, I wonder, was that "right", when Southern whites didn't want to associate with Southern blacks in restaurants???

You can defend racial apartheid if you wish. I am talking about political parties, which are in essence formed to promote ideas. That is, they are expressive organizations and have the right to exclude or include whom they like.

Nope--not clueless--just independent.

And if you want to be "independent" of any parties, what makes you think you should decide whom they run for an office?

I came from one state that moved from a "party primary" to "open primary" (Louisiana), and moved to another state that had an "open primary" and was forced by the courts to implement a "party primary" against the wishes of the vast majority of the citizenry (Washington). The "open primary" is simply BETTER--less corruption, better candidates, and better results.

How do you figure an open primary acheives any of those things? Are you sure there's a logical connection?

I don't want liberals, socialists and those who don't have the best interests of my party deciding whom we run.

SD

[Wonder Warthog]

"You can defend racial apartheid if you wish. I am talking about political parties, which are in essence formed to promote ideas. That is, they are expressive organizations and have the right to exclude or include whom they like."

It applies to ANY "right to free association" issue, which have routinely been decided in the courts AGAINST existence of any such right. There's a legal "logical disconnect" on the issue.

"And if you want to be "independent" of any parties, what makes you think you should decide whom they run for an office?"

Duh--because I'M BEING FORCE TO PAY FOR IT.

"How do you figure an open primary acheives any of those things? Are you sure there's a logical connection?"

Because that "open primary" was the reason Louisiana elected its first Republican governor in over a century. The "connection" was blatantly obvious.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Perhaps, though if any party can have a primary, it's not limited to just Democrats and Republicans."

And I don't think I ever said anything about "Democrats and Republicans"---as long as ANY party participates in a process that uses tax dollars to fund the process, then the election should be open. If, for instance, an election has Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and whoever else, then THOSE PARTIES SHOULD PAY FOR THE ELECTORAL PROCESS in proportion to the votes they get (or their party membership numbers---whichever the legislature decides is the fairest method).

If the courts say the "open primary" is unconstitutional on "right to free association" grounds, they should also find that tax-payer funded primaries are unconstitutional on "taxation without representation" grounds. Let the parties go back to caucuses and conventions, paid for by their own money.

[smokinleroy]

Even worse are the elections where people cross over to intentionally support the weaker candidate in the opposing party's primary.

This happened in this very primary for Republican candidate for the Texas House district 62 seat. There were two candidates - very conservative incumbent Larry Phillips, and liberal democrat Charlie Williams who switched parties just in time for the election. Dems. haven't had much luck in these parts in the last few years, so they're trying new tactics.

Party registration in the district is pretty evenly split between (D) and (R), but in this election, around 11,000 voted as (R), and only 1,500 as (D). There are reports of a conspiracy for (D)'s to register as (R) in an attempt to oust Phillips. Williams was heavily supported by local teachers' unions. My neighbors, who are lifelong (D)'s had Williams signs in their front yard. Phillips won, 55% to 45%. He will now run against some (D) bozo who was unopposed in the (D) primary, and Phillips will get about 2/3 of the vote in Nov.

[Young Scholar]

Let the parties go back to caucuses and conventions, paid for by their own money.

That would be fine with me.