On May 27, the Colorado Republican Party filed this brief in Colorado Republican Party v Griswold, 1:23cv-1948. The case involves the party’s desire to prevent independent voters from voting in Republican primaries. The case was filed in 2023 and has been moving slowly.
I think a political party should have the right to define who can vote in its primaries.
I agree, as long as they pay for and administer them.
They should also have the freedom to choose any other way they want to nominate – before or after the election, so long as they administer and pay for it themselves (taxpayers being on the hook or government administration of the selection method should not be an option).
A party should be free to run for an office they know they are highly unlikely to win without having someone willing to spend even minimal time to campaign such as filling out forms, being subject to public scrutiny as a candidate, answering questionnaires or being listed as failing to respond etc.
Any voter should be free to vote for any qualified party for any office, even if they fail to choose a candidate for that office ahead of the election.
Both the voter and the party might know the chance of winning that office is slim to none, so the voter would just be expressing some level of preference for the party as it applies to certain government functions for a fixed term of time.
A party should be free to reveal its candidate choices ahead of time or not.
They should also be free to choose candidates at the last moment, replace officeholders at any time for any reason during their term in office, limit who chooses their candidates or officeholders , when , and how, etc.
Candidates should be free to qualify as independent, and voters should be free to vote for unqualified parties or candidates as well – write in or its equivalent for voice vote.
Parties, voters, and individuals who want to hold office should have maximum possible free association or dissociation rights from each other.
A political “party” is no different than a gardening club, choral group, or church congregation. The government should keep out of their business.
Should political clubs, gardening clubs, choral groups, church congregations, etc. be able to support candidates for office? Of course. They can convey that support in any number of ways. There is simply no reason for the state to recognize that support.
Candidates are nominated/elected
NOT political parties
Yeah, that should change. Voters should be able to pick either one. Candidates should be able to refuse or accept the nomination of a party. A party should be free to choose to nominate or not nominate a candidate using whatever criteria and methods the party picks – but should also pay for and administer any such methods.
For that matter, candidates / parties should be free to reject votes from certain voters. This would require on the record voting, which there are many other reasons for as well.
Full maximum free association rights between voters, candidates and parties!
“There is simply no reason for the state to recognize that support.”
Yes, there is. Voters may not have the time to research candidates. Candidates may not have a track record. They may not have the means to be anything more than a meaningless name clogging up the ballot to the vast majority of voters.
Parties may not always have the means to inform most voters adequately of their candidates, but they have a built up track record over time, so a party name on the ballot gives voters useful information.
There should also be the means to just vote for a party, regardless of candidates – even if they have none for a particular office. Or just vote for a party for all offices with one click and go on with the rest of your day, for those voters who prefer that option.
@HB,
Why is it a concern of the state that some voters are ignorant of the candidates? Not having time to research candidates is a rationalization.
No, it’s not. It’s a rational allocation of time and priorities for people with lives. Therefore, not printing party names on the ballot and not letting voters vote by party gives a net advantage to:
-Those few voters who do have the time and inclination to do a lot of research about candidates
-Those candidates with the time , money, charisma, connections, organised support, and other resources to reach the most voters most effectively and most repeatedly
-Those parties , groups, organisations and special interests with the most resources to promote their candidates most effectively
– candidates and parties with advantages such as incumbency, relatively media attention / support / favorability etc
– candidates and parties whose supporters have the most free time, money and or best organization infrastructure
Who gets screwed? Everyone else.
The net effect of what you propose is to concentrate political power, and as a more or less direct result all other types of power, in fewer hands , to tilt the playing field further to the haves, to put underdogs of every kind at even more of a disadvantage, and to centralize power more in more centralized government along with more centralized concentration of power outside of government – they go hand in hand.
I propose the opposite.
The unrealistic and utopian notion, thoroughly disproven in real life, that a significant percentage of voters will either research all candidates on their ballot thoroughly or that all candidates and parties can effectively communicate with a significant percentage of voters , or that many voters even have the ability to adequately assess the claims, promises, and record if any of all these candidates is the real rationalisation here.
You either realize full good and well that I’m right about the net effect of your proposal, or you are out of touch and naive, and other comments you’ve made lead me to think you are not out of touch or naive at all.