Two bills have been introduced in the Ohio legislature to add a question about political party membership on the voter registration form. HB 208 has seven sponsors; see it here. It was introduced June 7.
The other bill is HB 210. See it here. It has eight sponsors. The chief difference between the two bills is that HB 210 has a more severe deadline for voters to join a party if they intend to vote in its upcoming primary. HB 210 was introduced June 13.
Both bills would provide for a write-in line, so that a voter could register into an unqualified party by writing it in.
Neither bill has made any headway so far. If either one passed, Ohio would switch from being an open primary state to a closed primary state.
The bills make no provision for a party to tell the state that it wants independent voters to be able to vote in its primary. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a party wants to let independents vote in its primaries, it has that right. That case was Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut.
Ohio independent candidates are often challenged, on the basis that they have behaved as though they are really party members. Courts that adjudicate these disputes frequently delve into which meetings a candidate has attended, and even details about their spouses. HB 208 would end that. An “independent” would be someone who is registered as an independent.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=137010
WEST AS CANDIDATE = DOOM FOR BIDEN ???
Biden is doomed with or without him, but by all means, bring him on. Just as with the primary, more candidates will work in Trump’s favor in the general.
Ned Foley is of course wrong. There was never a premise that electors would represent majority sentiment in their states. In fact, the hope was that they would act as a deliberative body.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
The electoral college was supposed to be deliberative, not a proxy for popular votes. The whole idea of pledged electors is anathema to the original purpose. Just reading these documents again is a good reminder just how far the US GOV has strayed from its original design.
My ideas are designed to take things in the opposite direction. Too far? Perhaps. It’s not likely they’ll all get implemented at once, especially without some massive collapse or disaster that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. It’s too bad there isn’t a body like a constitutional convention , except without the time and place constraints they suffered under, to help hash out the ideas. I was hoping for that here, to little avail. Anyone have a better suggestion?
TOTALLY SEPARATE USA AND STATES ELECTIONS. ???
USA ELECTOR/VOTER = USA CITIZEN, 18 YRS OLDE. PERIOD.
FAILURE TO DO SO IN 14-2 AMDT / 19 AMDT / 26 AMDT
NOOOO CRIMINAL/MENTAL/ELITE/ETC STUFF.
ALL VOTERS HAVE TO TRY AND SURVIVE WHATEVER THE TOP HACKS DO OR NOT DO —
ESP GETTING KILLED/INJURED IN FOREIGN WARS AND DOMESTIC REBELLIONS.
I’m not sure what AZ is even asking this time. I’m not calling for any national elections, unless you mean generals and admirals selecting a commander in chief from among them, sort of like bishops or cardinals selecting a church patriarch or pope. Having hundreds of millions of you vote for a president makes about as much sense as if the apostate Roman church had all of their parishioners in every part of the world vote on the pope every four years. Admittedly, our nation’s presidential elections are equally ridiculous. And yes, I’m perfectly free to say so, regardless of whatever nonsense propaganda you’re fed.
State elections likewise make no sense. Each of your states is way too big for what I propose, if you bother to read why I propose what I do any of the times I explained the rationale behind each proposal. If your 3,000 or so counties were of equal population, you’d be right at about the correct level to have an annual partisan election of sheriffs and deputies, if they were also given the duties of judge, jury, and executioner, and if the voting criteria I propose were implemented.
Speaking of which, my voting criteria are, once again, not bound by your constitution. I’m writing or trying to hash out a general plan, not one specifically tailored to your country. However, your country has been very informative in writing the plan thus far. Specifically, I read the debates your founding PATRIARCHS had regarding your constitution as it was being deliberated, and put them in their European historical context. I’ve also studied other nations and their forms of government design, now and in the past, with an eye towards results.
Clearly, a lot of things are not working as intended in your country. Government has become several orders of magnitude too big, too intrusive, too complicated, too expensive, too difficult for the average voter or citizen to influence or change or even figure out what needs to be changed or how, etc.
I looked at how things went wrong. Centralization of government was one major issue. The expansion of your population by two orders of magnitude, and the unwise doing away with voting barriers that existed for good logical reasons to perhaps an additional order of magnitude, was another. The division of powers hasn’t worked as intended; I understand the reasoning behind it, but I think the better division of powers is not within government, but between government and various other social institutions and hierarchies.
Complexity of laws and the speed and ease with which they change is obviously a big problem. You can’t logically at the same time require everyone to know and obey the laws, and simultaneously make it impossible for even the rare people with photographic memories to know them all, unless they also spend all day keeping up with the latest changes passed by their state, national, and local legislatures, even larger reams of regulations issued by bureaucrats from more agencies than there are stars in the sky, and even if someone could read, remember, and keep up with all the changes in all of those, it wouldn’t be enough for them to finish law school and pass the bar exam of every state they visit, since people who have in fact done those things spend entire careers hashing out what this or that passage actually means in court.
Is any of that a logical , reasonable, or sane system? Of course not. I’ve proposed alternatives. I’ve explained the reasoning behind each of them. I’ve asked for questions and counterproposals, and entertained any that I received.
Regarding your constitutional amendments starting with the 1860s, they have pretty much all been junk. They need to be repealed. Better yet, your constitution should be terminated for having utterly failed to restrain your federal government in the manner intended, along with dissolving the union, except perhaps as a purely military defense union. You would then do well to dissolve the states and implement the local government reforms I suggest, or at least give them some thought, and to the rationale behind each of them, and what might work better to achieve each of the objectives behind making them.
As for the hackneyed reasoning in the last paragraph AZ vomited out at 2:02, children can also be killed by foreign invaders or domestic rebels. So, if we follow what AZ mistakes for logic, children should vote. Alternatively, only men who are in physical and mental condition to fight in war should vote, which is in fact one of my proposals.
But then, you need to consider exactly what they are voting on. As I explained earlier, it makes no sense for anyone outside the military to vote on the commander in chief, and probably little sense for everyone in the military below top ranks to so vote. It also makes no sense for anything as big as your federal government, or ours, to have anything to do with anything else.
When it comes to local law enforcement, I’ve made my case for consolidating roles. I can make it again, but if you have not read or understood it the last three hundred times, you should at least ask, and by you I don’t mean anyone who can’t detect a more significant difference between Hitler and Trump than one of them having been in jail. Or anyone who thinks the U.S. is currently a monarchy, or that the most significant error they ever made was a typo, etc.
So, at a bare minimum, anyone voting should be mentally, physically, intellectually, morally, and otherwise experienced with and prepared for duties of law enforcement, judging the accused, deciding disputes, carrying out the death penalty, corporal punishment, and other legal remedies, and for military service on the front lines. There are other rationales for the other voter criteria I propose. I don’t feel like listing them all again, and they may differ from one local area to another, just like laws. But I’ve laid out the rationale for each of them before.
In any case, it makes sense to have an election hall which can hold all the voters, and for all of them to personally know each other well. An electorate of about approximately 100 patriarchal noblemen or knights to govern a precinct or county of about approximately 100,000 human beings, but only as to the worst criminal transgressions and most intractable disputes, with many less formal avenues to prevent, resolve, or address anything not rising to that level.
At the time your constitution was passed you had 13 states with about 2 or 3 million people. Most duties of government were to be at state and local levels. The average state was roughly on the order of magnitude of population I propose for my counties, precincts, states, or whatever term you prefer.
Only White, free, property owning men over 21 (and there were additional restrictions in states) could vote. A lot of White men were not property owners. Many Whites were indentured servants, apprentices, or tenant farmers. Negroes, Indians, and females could of course not vote. Perhaps there were exceptions for free, property owning negroes in some states, but there were not very many in any case.
A property owning 21 year old men in those days was typically a married, gainfully employed head of household, faithful Christian churchgoer, gun owning militia member, military veteran, etc. I’ve incorporated those conditions explicitly. People lived maybe half as long, so think more like 40 nowadays. 18 years olds now rarely have the life experience and responsibility to make decision over other people’s taxes and property or to have the requisite judgement over those who do. 21 year olds rarely do either, for that matter. The voting age should have been raised, not lowered.
The other changes in who gets to vote have all gone in the wrong direction as well. As has the centralization of government power, and the expansion of government at all levels into many more areas of people’s lives than it belongs in. Let’s consider those numbers again.
2 or 3 million people, perhaps 200,000 per state on average. Let’s say 1 in 10 of those was allowed to vote. That’s 20,000 voters in an average state. The federal government was an afterthought. Legislators were considered the most important branch of government. Let’s say there were 100 in the lower house of an average state. That’s about 200 voting constituents per legislator. Very close to my proposal. Even at the federal level, with maybe 200,000-300,000 voters, and maybe a hundred House members (again with legislative branch preeminent) that’s 2,000 to 3,000 voters per representative.
I think it makes sense to combine branches of government. Written laws should be simple enough to remember and understand. If they are, there’s no need for a legislature. Law enforcement can interpret and apply the law on the spot. Criminals respect the law a lot more when punishment is swift, sure, and severe.
There’s very little petty crime in areas where organized crime bosses raise their kids. They understand the criminal mentality, being criminals themselves. It’s not that they have to actually carry out swift, sure, and severe punishment against petty criminals often. The fact that they would if they had to has a sufficient deterrent effect. Criminals are not that scared of being caught and released or warehoused and coddled.
Population replacement is a big problem. Your constitution and system of laws have a religious and cultural context. That context evolved out of the experience of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds. Like it or not, especially with laws being so easy to change, people of other backgrounds have different moral and cultural values. Even people of different local areas have differences which are important. Failing to consider that in your government design is a fatal error. Failing to consider the importance of patriarchy, just as much or perhaps even more so.
Thus: women should of course not vote. Neither should children, childless or unmarried men, men without a biological male heir, men of a different ethnic, cultural, or religious background than the majority in their voting area, men who don’t own and maintain property, men who are not gainfully employed, idiots, lunatics, drifters, papers, men too ashamed of their views to stand proudly before their friends and neighbors with the other men of their party for a standing count vote, men unable or unwilling to pay a substantial poll tax, men unable or unwilling to serve if elected, men who are unmarried, adulterers, sexual perverts, criminals, drug addicts, etc.
There should be incentives for people to not move around much, to do business locally with people they know, to get plugged in to their local area on many levels. Having government handle very little facilitates that. Taxing the movement of people and goods, especially long distances, especially people, and especially when moving more permanently facilitates staying local, trading locally, working and shopping locally, attending local schools and churches, joining local neighborhood organizations and charities, taking care of extended family, etc. Not granting voting rights to those who haven’t owned property in the local area for severs generations also helps .
Having those safeguards allows all those things to still happen sometimes, but with the proper costs and incentives for them to not happen too often. The atomization of society, population replacement, easy discarding of traditions and changes of laws, secularism, multiculturalism, manipulated mass media and education, destruction of families including extended families, isolation of people from neighbors they don’t know, centralization of power in the hands of government and at higher levels of government covering more people and territory – all these are negative trends, and my proposals are meant to mitigate and reverse them.
If anyone actually bothers to read, understand, and has a question or suggestion or several, please let me know. I’ve already mentioned who that does not include and why.
VERY EASY TO BE A MONARCH/OLIGARCH LOVER –
SEE THE RESULTS OF THE LIKES OF NAPOLEON, KAISER BILL, LENIN, STALIN, HITLER, HIROHITO, MAO, CASTRO, SADDAM ETC ETC ETC FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS — SLAVERY / DEATH / DESTRUCTION
———-
P-A-T
I don’t love monarchs. I think oligarchy needs to be an element of a successful government, along with meritocracy, tradition, patriarchy, limited representative democratic republicanism, theocracy, plutocracy, and statiocracy. I don’t think any one of those by itself is good. The optimal thing is to mix parts of each.
Monarchy seems like a waste of time if ceremonial (if enough people care, they can hire a family of actors) and too prone to idiot children and dishonest yes men courtiers if absolute. Democracy suffers from lazy, unambitious, venal people who can vote themselves the proceeds of the labors of any crab who starts to climb out of their bucket; over time more and more crabs notice, and quit trying. It’s basically lowest common denominator mob rule and communism on the installment plan.
Each of the others suffers from some defects in isolation. I won’t go over them unless someone here is proposing one of those by itself. And Max is also right about the importance of local, human scale, and keeping most things out of the hands of government altogether.
If nothing has been better for over 6000 years, there’s no reason to think your proposals will make things better either. Unless maybe you really are claiming to e the Alpha and the Omega. In which case, go ahead, stop being coy, and just say that you are making that claim. But then, even you are probably sane enough to understand it would only undercut your credibility even more, not add to it.
Claims about political “science” won’t cut it. Science is a method of inquiry based around verification, reproduced and demonstrated results, and peer review through dialectical examination of theories which try to explain the observed data, isolate possible orthogonal factors since correlation doesn’t equal causation, see what other explanations or solutions to a problem there could be, etc.
Nothing you are yelling about remotely resembles the scientific method of inquiry. If anyone questions or challenges any of your arrogant condescending know it all claims you start name calling, accusing, etc. None of your claims have real world evidence. Claiming the sky is falling, and has been falling continuously ever since Genesis, does nothing to bolster any of your claims. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate that any alternative will be better, much less why yours is the best among countless possible alternatives.
What you are doing is preaching your faith, not political science. But even then, there are things which work for preachers in gathering converts. You are doing none of them. Therefore, it’s not surprising that you have not gathered any. Repeating the same unsuccessful experiment endlessly and always getting the same result is nuts, but I guess everyone has to have a hobby, and you’ll keep pestering everyone here with the same nonsense so long as you draw breath and with zero regard for whether anyone agrees with you or is being persuaded by anything you say or not .
If on the other hand you have actual evidence for your claims, present it. I don’t think you know what evidence is. I think you are insecure in your faith and need to obsessively chant your mantras to keep convincing yourself.
Then again, maybe if you repeat your claims a few million more times and call anyone who bothers to engage them and not just uncritically accept them because they’re in all caps and you claim they are some kind of science or, more likely, just ignore and habitually scroll past or laugh at your posts trolls, morons etc, you’ll convince EVERYONE, or maybe most people, or whatever. Not very likely, but it’s not like you’re going to stop or do anything different.
TROLL MORONS WOULD STOP ALL REFORMS THAT ARE NOT PROVEN ***BETTER***.
— CAN’T BE PROVEN UNLESS A REFORM HAPPENS MANY TIMES.
BETTER THAN WHAT ???- THE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF MONARCH/OLIGARCH REGIMES FOR 6,000 PLUS YEARS.
CONDORCET- AROUND SINCE 1780S
PR – AROUND SINCE 1820-1850
APPV- AROUND SINCE 1970S
ADVANCEMENT OF POLITICAL *SCIENCE* AS WITH MATH, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, ETC.
—
EVEN SECRET BALLOTS SINCE 1870S
PRIMARIES SINCE LATE 1880S — NOW PRODUCING SUPER-DANGEROUS PLURALITY EXTREMISTS
NOOO- STONE AGE TROLL MORONS LOVE THEIR TYRANT MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS — TRIED AND TRUE FOR 1,000S OF YEARS.
No matter how bad things get, they can get worse. There’s no reason to think your proposals won’t make things worse rather than better. There’s also no reason to think your proposals are better than countless other proposals.
Political “science” isn’t science for the reasons already explained above. The fact that some things are newer doesn’t mean they are better. You are making contradictory statements, that the sky has been falling for over 6 thousand years, yet supposedly these changes made things better, yet we’re on the verge of some catastrophe. Pick one; they can’t all be true.
I don’t love monarchs, and oligarchy is only one element of a balanced system, it’s not good by itself. Your method is not science, for reasons already explained above. Scientists welcome a challenge, and a chance to be address arguments as to why their hypotheses might be right or wrong. Opposite of your approach.
You are the troll moron here. There is zero reason to believe anything you say. While it’s possible that you could be right about some things, the assumption that you’re wrong whenever you say anything is at least as good as the opposite, and probably better.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/house-freedom-caucus-members-00103296
CONGRESS
House Freedom Caucus faces an internal purge push
—–
THE OH PRIMARY MACHINATION = MORE PUBLIC PURGE LISTS
—-
GOING BAAAACK TO STONE AGE TYRANT PRECINCT CAPTAINS AND 0.1 PCT ELITE ELECTORS AIN’T ***BETTER*** –
UNLESS ONE IS A TROLL MORON TYRANT LOVER FROM HELL.
The tyrant part is your own imagination. The last part is you talking to yourself, but that’s to be expected with all the crazy stuff you say routinely. As for your fake news links? Boring.
@Max,
The Federalist were advocacy editorials. Not unsurprisingly every one supported a particular aspect of the proposed constitution.
Opponents would pick out points they thought would result in opposition.
By the time of the 1800 election Hamilton realized his Federalist #8 was naive.
NOOO or minimal mention in THE 1787-1788 Federalist about the ANTI-DEMOCRACY minority rule gerrymander math of USA H Reps , USA Senate and USA Prez/VP EC.
THUS — THE CURRENT COMMIE VS FASCIST DEGENERATE MONARCH ROT IN THE USA – ESP SENILE BIDEN VS SENILE TRUMP.
OFTEN CENTURIES FOR ROTTED REGIMES TO ROT TO EXTINCTION –
— EXAMPLES
OLDE ROMAN REPUBLIC – 400+ BC TO 27 BC
OLDE SPANISH EMPIRE – 1492-1931, ETC.
—-
P-A-T
Jim Riley, I know they were opinion papers. Did you actually mean 68, the one I referred to, or 8, which I did not? Hamilton wrote both (as Publius), if I’m not mistaken. Obviously, people change their minds. Nevertheless, the original point of the electoral college was to be deliberative.
As a proxy for popular votes, actual human electors are wasting their time. Even if the current formula is preserved, which I think is at least a bit better than no weight at all to states, it could be automated, based on the state by state results. Physical meetings of electors make no sense if they have no freedom of conscience.
Contra AZ drivel, the subjects he mentioned were discussed at length in those papers. Perhaps he hasn’t read them, or maybe it’s been a few decades? What AZ thinks are impediments to direct democracy and centralized national rule (at that point, federal would hardly be an apt description) were considered by your founding patriarchs to be necessary safeguards against something they rightfully feared.
I agree they are necessary safeguards, but they didn’t end up being strong enough; thus, my more radical proposals to solve those same problems. Gerry’s salamander wasn’t until 1812, so it would have been somewhat unexpected for it to be discussed a quarter century before then. Otherwise, the “problems” AZ mentioned were addressed at some considerable length and from a variety of perspectives.
Unlike Biden, Trump shows no sign of senility. Neither one is a monarch, and Biden is closer to both fascist and communist than is Trump. Biden is especially close to fascist in practice, and communist in ambition.
Given the dearth of non-rotted regimes in world history per AZ, the lifespan of any of them makes little if any difference. The chance they will be replaced by what AZ considers a non-rotted regime are negligible, before we even begin to consider whether it would in fact actually be not rotted. Otherwise, the death of one rotted regime is just the birth of another rotted regime.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
ANY MENTION OF THE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS IN THE 1787 CONST VIA THE TOP SECRET FED CONVENTION ???
— ON TOP OF THE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS IN ALL STATES IN 1787-1789 ???
—-
P-A-T
GERRYMANDERS WERE WELL KNOWN BY THE EARLY 1700S IN PA COLONY
—
PHILLY VS WESTERN AREAS
—-
GERRYMANDER EXTREME *ROTTEN BOROUGHS* IN UK HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR CENTURIES —
NOT REDUCED UNTIL 1832 GREAT REFORM ACT IN UK VIA A SUPER-RARITY — A PRO- *DEMOCRATIC* KING.
2 RESULTS –
END OF SLAVERY IN BRIT EMPIRE IN 1833 ACT OF PARL
UK MAJOR EMPIRE TO 1914 – SOMEWHAT WORLD PEACE – BUT STILL MANY NATION-STATE WARS.
—
ABOUT 30-35 PCT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER REGIMES NOW IN UK, USA, CANADA, INDIA, ETC – BRIT CONNECTED REGIMES