Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» What would happen if we did away with caucuses? We would have Primaries where the people would vote for the candidate to run?
I'm not quite sure how caucuses work. Does the political party pay all the costs? (As it should work)
I know Primaries, the taxpayers pay the costs - but unless the political party chooses to open it to others, it is only open to voting by members of the party. EG: Only Democrats can vote on the Democrat candidates, and only Republicans can vote on the Republican candidate.
To me, having taxpayers pay for a PRIVATE election (which a primary is) should be illegal. No different than having the Elks Lodge ask taxpayers to pay the cost of electing that organization's officers.
If Electoral College votes weren't an "all or nothing" deal, primaries/caucuses wouldn't be necessary.
Not all states have an all-or-nothing way of voting in the Electoral College. Some states do it by percentages. I think that's a more fair way if the Electoral College can't be eliminated completely, which would be the most fair way.
Only two states apportion Electoral College by ratio: Maine and Nebraska.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". On the one hand, it ties the EC to the popular vote. On the other hand, a state could have a majority of it's popular vote for CandidateA ... but if CandidateB gets the national popular vote, the state EC goes to CandidateB.
One of the other things I don't like is that the persons appointed to cast the electoral votes can vote any way THEY want to - irrespective of how the state or the rest of the country votes. They are held to "good faith" standards - no more.
Not sure about other states, but last I checked in Oregon and Washington - the Electoral College members were members of whichever party won the election. Not sure how they do it exactly. But it pretty much guarantees that though they technically have the authority to vote other than the winning candidate, they aren't likely to do so.
Thank you for your reply Walt. The financial end of it never concerns me. We the people pay through the nose for everything all the time including massive entourages being shuttled to Mar a Lago to play golf on weekends. Millions of our dollars have already been spent on his extravagant lifestyle and have you heard a peep from any of the devoted don peeps? Course not. What he can get from them they will gladly let him steal. So financing a primary election? Chump change. Happy Tuesday! :) Gonna listen/watch/embrace/absorb the don SOTU?
This post was edited by RosieG at February 4, 2020 11:31 AM MST
I object to it, because it's being used as a means of making it more difficult for other political parties' candidates. People are so used to it, that some believe the Democrat and Republican Parties are actually branches or agencies of the government.
The face of the libertarian party is Rand Paul. If I were a libertarian I'd be ashamed apalled disgusted and very angry. As for the Green Party or Peace Party or such others do you really think enough people would vote for any candidate they'd put forth in enough numbers to win a prez election? What 3rd party candidate every won Walt? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply.
The Progressive Party under Teddy Roosevelt didn't win, but it got more votes than the Republican Party in 1912. In the 1912 election, Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote compared to Taft's 23.2%, making Roosevelt the only third party presidential nominee to finish with a higher share of the popular vote than a major party's presidential nominee.
The main problem the Libertarian Party has is ... libertarians (small L) are too independent. In fact, they are so independent, many refuse to identify as members of the Libertarian Party. The party doesn't actually back national candidates. So since candidates are "on their own", they have a far more difficult time winning anything above local elections.
Walt O'Reagun 