Shopsmith Forums

Tell it Swamp Gator! I agree. If a man has served his tiome, he deserves to vote. ONCE per election please!
These days, we need to verify everyone. ESPECIALLY in Florida! Yes this is a stab at all the BUSH family.

I was quite surprised to see just how lax the voting laws are, even in the state where I vote. I thought Arizona was rather strict but in reality it is not.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

California and New Mexico - no requirement. Sorta of a "come one, come all" approach.

The last two elections I have voted by absentee ballot. The only control imposed being that the voter must be in possession of a mail in ballot.

I can't get my head around the way Americans choose their delegates. Seems a huge amount of money spent to choose between a handful of contenders. What's to stop Republicans voting for the Democrat candidate least likely to get elected?

jm51 wrote:I can't get my head around the way Americans choose their delegates. Seems a huge amount of money spent to choose between a handful of contenders. What's to stop Republicans voting for the Democrat candidate least likely to get elected?

There is a huge amount of money spent by people who are attempting to influence the outcome of a national election. This should make us all wonder.

I believe that federal elections should have a financial cap; a very low financial cap.

I cannot help but believe that no one spends thousands (even millions) to run in an election unless there is a financial payoff. They are not just patriotic.

With regard to you last question: The answer is nothing prevents that but why would I deliberately vote for an opposing candidate least likely to get elected?:eek:

That can happen in states that have an "open" primary election, which means any registered voter can vote for anyone on the ballot regardless of party affiliation. Some refer to the process of crossing party lines to vote in a primary as "raiding" and it does happen.

Other states have "closed" primary elections, which means you can only vote for candidates of your political party and those registered "independent" can't vote in the primary. Here in Pennsylvania we have a closed primary

A couple of states have something in between open and closed primaries.

Other states hold caucuses instead of primaries.

And all of these are held to elect "delegates" to the party conventions who select the Presidential candidate

pennview wrote:That can happen in states that have an "open" primary election, which means any registered voter can vote for anyone on the ballot regardless of party affiliation. Some refer to the process of crossing party lines to vote in a primary as "raiding" and it does happen.

Other states have "closed" primary elections, which means you can only vote for candidates of your political party and those registered "independent" can't vote in the primary. Here in Pennsylvania we have a closed primary

A couple of states have something in between open and closed primaries.

Other states hold caucuses instead of primaries.

And all of these are held to elect "delegates" to the party conventions who select the candidate.

The convention is another accumulation of expenses that I cannot justify in my own mind. Do we not already know who the two candidates are. In my mind, the conventions are just two huge boondoggles.

[quote="dusty"]There is a huge amount of money spent by people who are attempting to influence the outcome of a national election. This should make us all wonder.

I believe that federal elections should have a financial cap]
Actually this is not an uncommon practice in states that have "open" primaries, where any voter can vote in either party's primary. The idea is you go vote in the primary for a lousy candidate who would make a weak candidate against the nominee of your party. Then in the general election you vote for the candidate of your party. For example, Mitt Romney, a republican, admitted to voting in the democratic party primary in Massachusetts to vote for the democrat least likely to win in the general election against the republican candidate.

Some state political parties have "closed" primaries which means only a person registered as a member of that party can vote in that party's primary. Of course since in the general election it doesn't matter which party you are registered with (or an independent) some still register as a member of the party they don't support in the general election just so they can engage in primary shenanigans.

This kind of electoral hi-jinx is child's play, however. Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizen United opinion, which essentially threw out camgaign finance laws because the Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, we here in America are about to be inundated with an unprecedented amount of unregulated money from both sides buying ads on t.v. radio and robo-calls. While I can turn off the t.v. and the radio, the robo-calls really bug me (I suppose I can unplug the phone too, but then I can't get calls from friends and family members). Last month in Maryland before the republican primary I received 5-10 robo-calls per night from national and local republicans running for office (and I'm a registered independent!), prompting me to at least disconnect the answering machine and to contemplate canceling my land line entirely (as yet I don't get robo-calls on my cell phone). Wait until the general election gets going. I think the phone company may lose a lot of land-line customers who are going to be infuriated with all the robo-calling on behalf the candidates.

By the way, if the Supreme Court is right and money = speech, then isn't taxation illegal because it takes away some of my speech? Also, if I'm entitled to free speech, then where's my free money?

Edit: Pennview beat me to the explanation of open primaries.

You're right! Seems more like the GSA team-build "party" in Los Vegas than anything else. On the other hand, until Romney gets the necessary number of delegates it isn't a done deal.

On the other hand, all the money spend during the primaries, conventions and campaigns comes from "donations," and not taxes.

algale wrote:Actually this is not an uncommon practice in states that have "open" primaries, where any voter can vote in either party's primary. The idea is you go vote in the primary for a lousy candidate who would make a weak candidate against the nominee of your party. Then in the general election you vote for the candidate of your party. For example, Mitt Romney, a republican, admitted to voting in the democratic party primary in Massachusetts to vote for the democrat least likely to win in the general election against the republican candidate.

Some state political parties have "closed" primaries which means only a person registered as a member of that party can vote in that party's primary. Of course since in the general election it doesn't matter which party you are registered with (or an independent) some still register as a member of the party they don't support in the general election just so they can engage in primary shenanigans.

This kind of electoral hi-jinx is child's play, however. Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizen United opinion, which essentially threw out camgaign finance laws because the Supreme Court ruled that money = speech, we here in America are about to be inundated with an unprecedented amount of unregulated money from both sides buying ads on t.v. radio and robo-calls. While I can turn off the t.v. and the radio, the robo-calls really bug me (I suppose I can unplug the phone too, but then I can't get calls from friends and family members). Last month in Maryland before the republican primary I received 5-10 robo-calls per night from national and local republicans running for office (and I'm a registered independent!), prompting me to at least disconnect the answering machine and to contemplate canceling my land line entirely (as yet I don't get robo-calls on my cell phone). Wait until the general election gets going. I think the phone company may lose a lot of land-line customers who are going to be infuriated with all the robo-calling on behalf the candidates.

By the way, if the Supreme Court is right and money = speech, then isn't taxation illegal because it takes away some of my speech? Also, if I'm entitled to free speech, then where's my free money?

Edit: Pennview beat me to the explanation of open primaries.

OKAY. I understand now. I guess I am just too naive to be able to think like that.

pennview wrote:You're right! Seems more like the GSA team-build "party" in Los Vegas than anything else. On the other hand, until Romney gets the necessary number of delegates it isn't a done deal.

On the other hand, all the money spend during the primaries, conventions and campaigns comes from "donations," and not taxes.

And why does anyone
donate" hundreds of thousands of dollars? Where is their "return on investment". There is one, of that I am certain. I am just unable to see it. But I was taught that when something is hard to explain or understand - follow the money trail. Once at the end of that trail - all will come clear!