1. NOOOO primaries
   —
   PR and AppV

2. Political parties are private clubs. They have every right to say who can or cannot run under their banner. I hope Mr. White joins the Libertarian party. He will definitely be welcomed.

3. Having 1 or a few HACKS determine if one can be nominated for a PUBLIC office is the definition of monarchy / oligarchy

   — in blatant violation of USA Const Art 4, Sec 4 — *Republican form of government*

   Revive Union Army Gen Sherman and liberate AL

4. I agree with Mr. Stock that “Political parties are private clubs” and this is why I have a problem with taxpayer money being used for primaries. Its just political advertising for those parties, and despite the reasoning behind their introduction over a century ago they need to be gotten rid of. Political parties can easily set up their own conventions or primaries online using blockchain similar to Estonia.

5. Hawaii has revoked local Green Party candidates because they were pro-life in a pro-abortion political party.

6. It is a hard issue, because on one hand, the Green Party platform is explicitly pro-abortion rights (which I say as a positive), so in cases like that in Hawaii, or Rob Sherman from Illinois, I do think there should be some way to remove them from the party, but that is a separate issue from letting them have access to party primary ballots.

7. So a candidate that differs in any way from the party platform should be barred and removed from the ballot? This sounds like a tool ripe for abuse by party insiders from keeping popular outsider candidates from getting anywhere.

8. It’s a complicated issue. When a candidate is against some of the main party platform, there is an issue there. I don’t know the best way to deal with it, and of course you’re right in that it could lead to a stronghold on a party by individuals, but when the official platform of the party is, for example, pro-choice, and a candidate is running a campaign with an anti-choice message, I do think there is a problem there, though I don’t know the best way to address such things.

9. James, the best way to address that issue is for the voters in the primary to pick the candidate for nomination that they feel best represents the party.

10. I’m not convinced it’s as simple as that. The Green Party has disavowed candidates before, after said candidate already won a primary, and primaries are not a simple test of where people want the party as a whole. Look at the Democratic primary in Indiana’s 3rd Congressional district, where a pro-Trump, anti-choice mentally ill perennial candidate won against a legitimate Democratic candidate, or look at Mark Clayton, the anti-gay conspiracy theorist who won the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Tennessee in 2012.

    There are tons of examples where, after the fact, a party has had to disavow a candidate running on their ballot line, and I think it would be simpler if they could be disavowed before the election happens. Leave them on the primary ballot so the choice is still there, but inform voters the party does not back the candidate. Maybe there could be a committee in the various parties, a kind of candidate integrity committee, to vote and make sure the candidate, by and large, isn’t going to be an issue.

    There are multiple socialist parties that already have democratic centralism, and while it’s a debated issue, that is certainly preferred to having an anti-semantic as a Green Party candidate, thus making the Green Party as a whole look bad. The idea that a party should have no place in a primary vote is appealing to me, and one I used to accept, but I think there is some place when it comes to those running against the party platform. I dislike the idea of a board of party insiders choosing who can or can’t be endorsed by a party before the primary even happens, but there needs to be some policy to deal with candidates antithetical to the platform of the party they’re running on.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.