Re: Eric Cantor is Gone
And that changes nothing. It still doesn't change the fact that anyone who puts in a vote has that vote counted...threfore no ACTUAL nullification is happening. One person votes, and that vote is tallied. Another person votes, and their vote is tallied. Neither vote "nullifies" the other.
Hell, a better argument could probably be made that DENYING people the ability to vote in an election and voice their approval for one candidate over another simply based on their party identification could be the thing that's infringing upon their speech
If you want to say you have a problem with the open primary notion or that it's a corruption of the system...fine, that's debatable. I would probably even agree with that to a certain degree. But you're trying to suggeset that:
1. Their vote is nullified
2. Their "speech" is being surpressed
And factually those things are just not true. Disliking the process doesn't make them true.
I respectfully disagree as well.
To use a voting analogy, it would be like allowing non-union forces to have a vote in a union's internal election. And that's what a primary is supposed to be, and internal election by members of that party. It's why we register with a particular party in certain states that require that.
In the states that allow an open primary, it should not be party primaries, it should be a first culling in the General Election, with those candidates of every party involved - an At-Large election which is what actually does occur in some states.
If it's an internal party election, it should be just that, internal to the party, and not open to non-party members.
If Virginia wants an open primary system, fine. It should also have it run as an At-Large election (even though party affiliation of the candidates is placed on the ballot). That way, if people want to vote FOR someone they can, however, it would prevent people from voting against someone of another party by voting FOR someone that they have no intention of voting for in the General Election. In other words, if a Democrat truly wanted to vote for a Republican in the General, they could also do so in the At-Large primary (I have never voted straight ticket in the General). But, if it's going to be a Party Primary, it should be only those of that party that vote.
It is nullification, by the fact that those that do, may never intend to vote for the primary candidate again, thereby interfering with the process of choosing the candidate that those actually within the party want. It literally nullifies their vote, by making of no use or value the choice of members of the party to which the primary involves. That is the very definition of nullification.
It is suppression - to end or stop by outside force. The very definition of suppression. The two, arguably, most valued rights in this country are our franchise and our freedom of speech (political speech being the most valued of this particular right). When people from another party, participate for the purpose of nullification as defined above, it is suppression of the rights of those in that party.
I can keep restating it with different prose, but my opinion on this will not change. I may not be the most talented member here in my ability to be imaginative or well-spoken, but I do know right from wrong.
I see your point. I truly do. And, I completely agree with you when it comes to the General Election or votes in an At-Large election. However, I'm referring strictly to what are supposed to be Party Primaries. Again, if any political affiliation can vote, all political affiliations should be on the ballot, and if only one party is represented on the ballot, only those of that party should be allowed to vote.
People! There are 2 in-thread warnings about being off-topic and dragging forward posts from before the warnings. It needs to stop right now. There are several fewer participants in this thread at this point and there is still moderation pending. Get back on-topic, referring ONLY to the OP or join them. Points are also a possibility.