On February 13, the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 73, which lets independent voters choose a primary ballot without having to join that party. It now goes to the Senate floor.
On February 13, the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 73, which lets independent voters choose a primary ballot without having to join that party. It now goes to the Senate floor.
Parties should have the option of whether or not to let non-members of their party vote in their own primary.
However, if the state funds the primary, independent voters should be allowed to vote in those primaries. If a party prefers not to let non-party members vote in their primary, they should have to pay for the conduct of their primary, or nominate their candidates by another method that doesn’t require state funding.
Why should they even get a primary, unless that’s what they want to do and they pay for it themselves?
PUBLIC OFFICES- PUBLIC NOMINATIONS — BY ALL/SOME PUBLIC VOTERS.
PARTY GANGS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT EMPIRES.
SEE NOW OLDE TX WHITE PRIMARY CASES IN SCOTUS 1928-1932 —
*MODERN* START OF SCOTUS IN BALLOT ACCESS CASES.
—-
NO PRIMARIES
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS LAWS – NOM PETS/FEES
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Parties don’t need candidates. Voters should vote for the party. The winning party should then pick office holders and substitute them out as needed.
No primaries is correct. No ballots, petitions or fees (except for poll taxes which would replace all other taxes). Stand up for your party and be counted, like at a caucus, town meeting or convention. Stand only in one party’s corner so no approval voting. Only one party wins, so no proportional representation.
Ideally, the only type of officeholders parties would appoint would be a combination law enforcement officer-judge-jury- executioner position. Thus zero separation of powers. Some years, Winning parties might appoint some extra offices – maybe people to look at revising laws. But they should rarely if ever actually be revised. The laws should be simple enough for everyone to know and remember.
“Parties don’t need candidates. Voters should vote for the party”
That’s pretty much how they do elections in Israel.
“Thus zero separation of powers”
That’s also the case in Israel.
Israel has separation of powers.it has three branches of government just like USA.
@ Ari
Any separation of powers that exists in Israel is at the pleasure of the Knesset. The Knesset is supreme and can revise any aspect of the constitution with a simple majority vote.
That’s why I think that Israel’s constitution can be described as a parliamentary dictatorship.
But, they are not alone. In a sense, most of the British parliamentary systems are similar. In theory, the British House of Commons can effectively abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords with a majority vote. The Lords can only delay its implementation. The monarch theoretically holds a veto, but its has not been exercised for so long that its use would be politically suicidal for the King.
To be fair, there are a couple of issues in the Israeli Basic Laws that require a super majority of the Knesset o be amended. But, in the in the final analysis, even these issues are entirely within the power of the Knesset. According to Wikipedia:
The Knesset enjoys de jure parliamentary supremacy and can pass any law by a simple majority, even one that might arguably conflict with a Basic Laws of Israel, unless the basic law has specific conditions for its modification. Basic laws that include specific conditions include the following:
Article 4 of the Basic Law of the Knesset, on the electoral system, can be amended only by a majority of 61 of the 120 Knesset members.
Article 44, which prevents the amendment of the law by an Emergency Regulation, can be amended only by a majority of 80 members.
A majority of the Knesset members can amend the Basic Laws on the government and on freedom of occupation.[40]
@ Ari:
And, BTW, my criticism of the Israeli constitution is NOT hypothetical. We can see from current news that many Israelis are upset that the new government may make significant changes to the judicial system in Israel.
Israeli government is far too complicated. I see one level of elected government with one position, precinct judge/peace officer (although the winning party can hire more than one peace officer in a precinct, but they would still only be paid with that precinct’s poll tax).
Peace officers would be a responding officer, judge, jury and executioner in the field, and would interpret how the law applies to any situation they respond to. Laws would be very simple and memorable by everyone, without the need to revise them ever (or very rarely). Thus, no legislative or judicial branches or multiple levels of government would be needed. The precinct peace officer(s) paid with proceeds of a poll tax and any deputies they hire with their own or otherwise voluntarily raised funds would be the only government position at the only level of government.
The only other government needed is a national defense militia or military. It can be funded through a portion of the poll tax also. As with the current military, positions below commander in chief are not elected. As for commander in chief, it seems to me at the moment that selection by the next lower level of generals and admirals makes most sense.