Proponents of abolishing the ability of parties to have nominees will attempt to get a top-four initiative on the ballot in Idaho. They have filed the initial paperwork with Idaho officials, but the petitioning won’t start for a while. See this story.
NOOO PRIMARIES
———-
P-A-T
Ugggg! Another bad one. I hope they fail.
Yes?
Top Four elects commies.
Good point Pat Meares fan.
It appears from the information provided in the article that this proposal, like all prior top-x proposals, denies parties either the right to have their own nominees, or to control who may use their party label. IMO, that is a violation of Eu v San Francisco, which recognized that political parties are private associations entitled to their own internal procedures for choosing their leaders.
First past the post, vote by party, standing count in person vote. Winning party appoints officeholders.
How the winning party appoints its officeholders should be the business of the winning party. If loser parties want to waste time appointing would be officeholders, how they go about doing that should be their business as well.
@WZ,
One should not be required to make a declaration of political belief in order to be permitted to vote.
Why not? Voting is political power. Unaccountable power is worse than accountable power, is it not?
“One should not be required to make a declaration of political belief in order to be permitted to vote.”
Even to vote in a private association?
“One should not be required to make a declaration of political belief in order to be permitted to vote.”
And, further, if you have an open primary, does a party not have the right to withhold its label from anyone claiming to represent that party without its permission?
No one would be denied the right to vote.
@WZ,
Are political parties in Idaho private associations if the state maintains the membership rolls and administers their nomination contests?
Voting is a declaration of political beliefs. I would guess most of you believe a legislative branch of government should exist (I don’t, but it exists, so let’s take that as a given for the sake of this discussion). I would guess relatively few of you would say legislators should be voting secretly. If I was to then ask why, I would guess you might say that legislators should be accountable because their votes cause government power to be exercised over others.
Furthermore, many of you support voter referenda and initiatives. As discussed previously, I don’t, but let’s assume for the moment that you are in a jurisdiction with both legislature and initiative/referendum, and that neither looks like it will go away in the foreseeable future. I suspect few of you want public on the record voting on initiatives/referenda, but why not? Whether it is legislature’s or voters who vote on legislation, it has power over everyone if it passes. Shouldn’t the logic of why one should be public voting apply to the other?
Furthermore, if you support the election of legislators, executives who implement laws, and / or judges who interpret them, and believe their individual decisions should be on the record because they should be individually accountable in how their use of power impacts others, should you not be equally accountable for how your use of voting power selects these people? If not, why not ??
WHAT WOULD PRECINCT TYRANTS DO IN THE MAXZIM UTOPIA — ???
KILL ALL VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR AND ELECTED A KILLER TYRANT – WHO RANDOMLY KILLS VOTERS IN ALL PRECINCTS
— OR — ORDER SUCH VOTERS TO COMMIT SUICIDE ???
SEE VARIOUS GERMAN/JAPANESE SUICIDES AT END OF HITLER/HIROHITO KILLER REGIMES IN 1945.
PLEASE AZ LAY OFF THE BOOZE.
AZ, asking the same presumptuous and erroneously bases questions repeatedly that have been answered in other recent discussions leaves little choice but to conclude that you are arguing in bad faith. As already explained, repeatedly, my system is not utopian and has no tyrants.
Your question is nonsensical because the voters of a precinct would only be voting for their own friends and neighbors to serve as peace officers for one year in one precinct. There would be no cross precinct voting for any multiprecinct officers. Your question is furthermore complete nonsense because I’ve already explained more than once just within the last couple of days why my system would ensure there would be very little if any abuse of power by peace officers. Let’s see if it will let let me post the links again this time, as it seems to be hit and miss in that regard.
First link again – let’s see if it will post:
https://ballot-access.org/2023/04/30/california-bill-making-it-more-difficult-to-get-statewide-initiatives-and-referenda-on-the-ballot-advances/#comment-1154054
Second link;
https://ballot-access.org/2023/04/30/california-bill-making-it-more-difficult-to-get-statewide-initiatives-and-referenda-on-the-ballot-advances/#comment-1154057
This is at least the third time in recent days I’ve explained this to AZ. If he continues to ignore the replies and post the same ignorant questions, his honesty and mental capacity will be further called out each and every time.
“Are political parties in Idaho private associations if the state maintains the membership rolls and administers their nomination contests?”
Yes they are. It may happen that a state subsidizes them in return for regulation, but, they remain as private as any profit making corporation that receives government contracts. Supreme Court decisions support this.
As a private association, if a party believes that they are giving up too much to the state by accepting subsidization, they should consider rejecting it, and have legal means for maintaining their independence. That may involve maintaining their own membership rolls, and running their own primary, or other nomination methods.
Corporations retain the right to “go public”, and offer their ownership shares in a stock market, or remain privately held.
So, likewise, do political parties.
Notice too that AZ distracts from a good faith question he has been dodging repeatedly with sensationalistic nonsense that is not only easily refutable but has already been repeatedly refuted in recent days. Is the purpose of this purely to purposefully distract from questions AZ finds discomfortable?
The discussion AZ keeps trying to dodge and bury under the carpet is
https://ballot-access.org/2023/05/02/top-four-proponents-will-try-to-qualify-an-initiative-for-idaho/#comment-1154329
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=135976
RCV ROT. SEE 2 LINKS
—
CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
MAXZIM NONSENSE SCHEME ALLEGED UTOPIA —–
VERY LIMITED VOTERS
MINORITY RULE PLURALITY WINNERS – PRECINCT TYRANTS
NO SEPARATION OF POWERS
BASIC SPARTA REGIME FROM 500 BC – PRE DARK AGE
NOOOOO THANK YOU.
—-
2023
MAX ADULT VOTERS – SINCE THEY PAY THE TAXES IN THE REGIME AND MAY DIE DEFENDING THE REGIME AGAINST DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CRIMINALS
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
—
PR AND APPV PENDING CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
The only one peddling nonsense here is you. The tax that would pay for peace officers would be a poll tax, charged only to officers. No one who isn’t eligible to be a voter would be eligible to be a peace officer, and vice versa. Therefore, the people paying the tax, voting to elect peace officers, and serving as peace officers fighting crime would be the exact same people.
You are correct that everyone would pay a head tax to support the military. The only function of this military would be to protect against foreign enemies. There would be normal promotion through the ranks, no different than now. The only difference is that the top ranks, possibly with input from lower ranks, would select the commander in chief. The commander in chief would have zero jurisdiction over civilian life.
So, again, your presumptuous catastrophizing has absolutely nothing to do with what I have proposed.
You continue to brazenly lie that peace officers would be tyrants, even after your nose has been repeatedly rubbed in the evidence that this would be completely illogical and counter to clear safeguard incentives.
The real separation of powers is that everything except national defense and fighting crime would be taken entirely out of the hands of government.
Rank communist voting can’t be done right.
And, again, the only one alleging my proposal is utopian is you. I have explicitly denied it.
Correction, charged only to voters,not only to officers.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
https://ballot-access.org/2023/05/02/top-four-proponents-will-try-to-qualify-an-initiative-for-idaho/#comment-1154347
Why does AZ ignore counterarguments and repeat already debunked lies? Why does he keep linking communist fake news sites? Why does he keep ignoring a legitimate question just because it causes him cognitive dissonance? Prima facie evidence of arguing in bad faith???
AZ DOESN’T ARGUE LIKE A WHITE MAN.
@WZ,
Idaho does not permit recognized political parties to make nominations by any other method than primary. One becomes a member of a political party by informing the county election officials.
Idaho permits newly-qualifying parties to nominate by convention.
SHAME ON AZ FOR NOT DEBATING LIKE A WHITE MAN!