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???
Nope--not clueless--just independent. 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.
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