Republicans for Gay Unions.

[Spiffor]

If you really wanted to beat the Europeans, you should rather ask why 1. the President isn't elected by the Parliament or 2. why there isn't a runoff process, that would lower the problem of people who don't vote according to their idea, in order not to "waste the vote"

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you really wanted to beat the Europeans,

I think you misunderstood. 'Beating the Europeans' meaning Europeans usually say what I said in that post, so I beat them to it.

The primaries should be open because currently the two parties have passed laws effectively preventing the creation of meanful third parties.

No, the system, which has been in place since the beginning of the republic (when the two party system had not been entrenched in any way) is responsible for the two parties having such power.

That is no reason to meddle in the internal politics of the parties. We don't tell IBM who can vote in their internal elections for director simply because they are big.

Republicans fanatically oppose it in states like Texas where they have effectively made elections meaningless.

You conveniently forgot the Democrats in Texas as well..

[Lul Thyme]

I have a question. I dunno why I never thought of this before.
Who decides who votes in primaries.
What rules prevent a Democrat from voting in the Republican primary, for a crap choice to increase chance of Democrat win?

[Ramo]

Nothing.

In certain states, anyone can vote in either primary. In other states, only people with the correct party registration can vote for in that primary (but there's nothing stopping you from changing your party registration just prior to the primary since there are no dues, black lists, etc.).

[Elok]

Some states have open primaries. Those states are called "stupid."

And the U.S. isn't nearly as religious-zealot as some people seem to think. There are lots of them, but they seem more common than they are due to their ability to make noise. They are nowhere near 60% of the country. That whole attitude is one of the reasons the Democrats keep getting beat on. You just assume that Bush got in by tweaking religious bigotry, and refuse to admit that some people might have, for reasons which I don't understand either but am forced to admit exist, seen something in him that they liked.

I voted for Kerry reluctantly; he seemed to be missing a personality, as he had a bunch of positions on issues but you got no impression of the man behind those issues. It's anyone's guess what he'd have done in any given situation. That's rather unattractive in times of war. And, who knows? There might be people in the U.S. who are not completely ignorant, have made informed decisions, and honestly feel that he has something to offer.

If the majority of citizens of the U.S. were anywhere near as stupid as some of you make them out to be, the country would be in the dark ages. But we aren't, we're just divided and afraid, and the Democratic party, in all fairness, seems to have its head up its arse which is not at all reassuring. Gore loses, so they nominate Kerry, who's basically the same person only without the WH experience and funnier-looking. After they'd finished weeding out eight other loons, that is, including Al Sharpton and the guy who failed to be Gore's veep last time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think you misunderstood. 'Beating the Europeans' meaning Europeans usually say what I said in that post, so I beat them to it.

I didn't misunderstand. I could think of two typically European comments about presidential elections (three actually, as I didn't write about the electoral collee) that I imagine a European would say before even mentioning open primaries.

Your system sucks so much that the primaries' closeness is at the bottom of the list of concerns

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neither of those two statements/questions would be raised by a Eurocom when someone was *****ing about not having an open primary .

Oh, and THANK GOD, our President isn't elected by Congress. What a piss poor arrangement that would be! I wonder why the Euros put up with that crap.

[chequita guevara]

What I want to know is why I, as a third party member, have to pay for the primaries of other parties?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and THANK GOD, our President isn't elected by Congress. What a piss poor arrangement that would be! I wonder why the Euros put up with that crap.

Well, it's pretty democratic in a system that has RP (or partial RP like Germany) and it prevents gridlock, and gets things done (note: I'm speaking about the head of the executive in general here, and not necessarily the head of State in particular).

But I couldn't tell you too much, considering that I come from a country where the president is directly elected, with a system that is actually sane (i.e., it simply has a runoff between the two main candidates, which reflects the ideological diversity of the country more accurately)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, it's pretty democratic in a system that has RP (or partial RP like Germany) and it prevents gridlock, and gets things done (note: I'm speaking about the head of the executive in general here, and not necessarily the head of State in particular).

Preventing gridlock is a bad thing. It is best to have gridlock so that any legislation has to be a compromise and not just one side pushing things through because they have 50%+1 as goes on in Europe.

I guess it is one of those times where saying "The US is a republic, not a democracy" makes sense . I perfer a Republic, btw.

[chequita guevara]

Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid. Much of our compromise legislation falls into this catagory. Then when it fails to do what it was intended to do, but still costs money, the conservatives go around saying "We told you so." Compromise favors conservatism and is the enemy of progress.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Enemies of progress

[Boris Godunov]

Oregon passed a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages last year (although it passed by a much narrower margin than the bans in the 11 other states). The social conservatives didn't get much chance to celebrate, however. Right after the election, the Republican state senator who sponsored marriage ban introduced legislation granting gays civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. He admitted he pushed the constitutional ban through to innoculate the civil unions bill from attacks that it would lead to gay marriage.

I don't know if I like his methods, but I must admit is fun seeing the religious righters sideswiped like that.

[Sava]

conservatism is the enemy of progress

[Imran Siddiqui]

I must admit is fun seeing the religious righters sideswiped like that.

That's amusing .