Why do we have primary elections?

[Fading Captain]

Why do American taxpayers continue to legitimize the two corporate parties by funding primary elections. In the end, they have their conventions and pick their own leader anyway.
What good does it do?
These political parties should fund their own process.

All we are doing is strenghtening the corporate parties' grip on our democracy.

[BlooInBloo]

1. For parties to choose their nominee.

[Fading Captain]

2. For "Parties" to choose

So, why should taxpayers pay for these expensive elections?

[Skidmore]

3. I don't object to a culling process for parties, but voter registration

and participation should not be linked to party membership nor should other parties be forced out of the system.

[Fading Captain]

5. Why don't you object?

Why should taxpayers FUND the process of parties culling the list of candidates?

[Skidmore]

10. I'd rather the taxpayers in general fund it that a few wealthy individuals

or corporate entities.

[Fading Captain]

11. Not me

Considering the corporations are funding the damn thing anyways.

[Skidmore]

19. Well, hell, let's just box it up and hand it to them with a pretty bow on top.

No need to bother with voting at all then.

[Fading Captain]

23. What in the world are you talking about?

If the Democratic Party or Republican Party couldn't be trusted by their own party to nominate a candidate during a convention, then what are we losing?

[napi21]

4. Without a primary, NOONe could EVER get a majority vote!

Primaries don't stop a third Party candidate from running. Remember Perot? He did quite well, even in the General Election.

If you really want to push for more than 2 Parties, you need to start with all the State regulations that make it next to impossible to get on the ballot.

[Fading Captain]

6. Sure they would

The Democrats and Republicans could elect delegates and go vote at the convention.

[davepc]

7. We could go back to the old method of party bosses trading their bloc of votes

in smoky back rooms at the convention.

primaries are much more open and democratic.

[Fading Captain]

12. We have NO RIGHT

to expect these processes to be public.

Elections are a right.

Primaries are not.

[pinto]

8. Convention picks for a presidential candidate are history. It's the state primaries

that decide who will lead the ticket(s).

And lots of people - from all walks of life - have a vote in them.

[Fading Captain]

15. And they shouldn't/

My tax dollars should not go to help the Democratic Party elect Hillary Clinton or the Republicans elect Mitt ROmney.

THey can't put whoever they want up there, and I'll make up my mind if I don't like it.

[pinto]

20. Your tax dollars go to fund the election process, not the candidate.

Yeah, states hold primaries - and the mechanism is state funded - and the national election mechanism is state funded as well, via taxation. But your taxes don't determine who the candidate *is*, just the actual election procedure.

The states and the federal government are responsible to see that elections happen, as a function of the Constitution, a right for every eligible voter and a responsibility to a democracy.

Who runs, and what parties have a voice are another issue - not tied to taxation at all.

[Fading Captain]

21. I am totally fine with paying taxes for elections

I am not fine with paying to help a party select a candidate.

There's a HUGE difference there.

[ThomWV]

9. To give the impression that the people have anything at all to do with who the leaders are.

[Guava Jelly]

13. So we can pick the slab of meat who will best represent us..sorta

:shrug:
My picks never win

[skids]

14. Because we are too stupid to implement IRV/concordat systems. n/t

[fenriswolf]

16. what we should have is a runoff ballot

for those of you who do not know a runoff ballot is one where you choose your candidates in order of precidance, the #1 votes are tallied and for the candidate(A) that got the least amount of votes they are stricken from the voting and the people who put voted for candidate (A) now have their votes count for candidate (b) or number 2. Imagine how many people would vote third party with this kind of system in play, definatly wouldnt hear any more arguments about being a traitor to the dems or "throwing your vote away".

[Odin2005]

17. I smell a Naderite disruptor...

[Fading Captain]

22. I smell a hall monitor who wants to stifle debate

NM

[havocmom]

18. A coin toss just doesn't address any issues

or expose any character

[postulater]

24. If we had instant runoff elections

not only would we not need primaries, we would not need political parties either. Now that would really frighten the people who donate large sums.