See here for an interesting 14 minute You Tube, made by South Carolina Republican activist Edwin Turnage, which explains why the South Carolina Republican Party wants a closed primary for itself. The party recently lost in U.S. District Court over the issue of whether the Constitution allows the state to force the party to use an open primary. The party will soon decide whether to appeal.
The You Tube talk explains that the state law, which lets the party nominate by convention if it wishes, is bogus. The law also says that 3/4ths of the delegates to the state convention must vote in favor of convention nomination, to put that idea into practice. Credentialed delegates who happen not to be on the floor when such a vote takes place are counted as “no” votes, under the state law. The You Tube talk also explains that the party’s biggest reason for desiring a closed primary for itself is the 2012 presidential primary. Because it is unlikely that there will be a South Carolina Democratic presidential primary in 2012, Republicans assume that Democratic voters will vote in the Republican presidential primary and cast a strategic vote for the Republican who is most likely to do poorly in the general election. The talk mentions that suspicion that many South Carolina Democrats have that Alvin Greene, the Democratic Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, was boosted in the Democratic primary by Republican voters who hoped to embarrass the Democratic Party. However, research has shown that few Republicans chose a Democratic primary ballot in 2010 in South Carolina.
What is the ongoing source of the alleged mystery regarding the PUBLIC nomination of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices by ALL or SOME PUBLIC Electors-Voters in ANY Area – a State area or a local area ???
Still trying to find the language in the U.S.A. Const that says that X percent of ALL Public Electors in ANY area have a constitutional *right* to put ANY candidates on the general election ballots.
Try and find X in the U.S.A. Const. Very good luck.
The Helsinki Accords includes a declaration that the participating nations will provide for “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”
Political parties are the means by which ordinary people can band together and try to control or influence government policy. The parties belong to their members and activists, not to the state. Too much state regulation of parties can lead to tyranny.
Pingback: The GOP’s Empty Stage – New York Times | Conservatives for America
The republicans should have thought about this before going all gung-ho for “Operation Chaos” (Limbaugh) in PA in the 2008 primaries.
What goes around, comes around, folks.
There’s no reason to think that Alvin Greene’s election was at all suspicious. No evidence of any campaign to vote for him over Vic Rawl exists. The Republican voters had even less of an idea of who the candidates were in the Democratic primary than the Democrats did. Republican voters were also very interested in the very active 4 candidate GOP gubernatorial primary. Why would they forgoe voting in that to support a certain loser against Jim DeMint?
Democratic participation in the 2012 GOP Presidential primary would depend on the Democratic field for Congress. There could be something to it, but its a sign of weakness that any party finds its own primary so uninteresting.
Since when do the Helsinki Accords prevail over 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 ???
PUBLIC Electors are doing nominations according to PUBLIC laws — not some aliens from outer space.
#4: Over the years, open primaries have worked against both major parties. In 2006, for example, the Mississippi Democratic Party filed suit against the state-mandated open primary.
In Michigan’s open Republican presidential primary in 2000, Sen. McCain won on the strength of Democratic and independent votes; he lost among GOP voters, 66% to 29%. 48% of the voters in that Republican primary were Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 17% independents.
The suits against state-imposed open primaries are not over– not by a long shot. The SC Republicans will likely appeal their case to the 4th circuit, and Tennessee’s Republicans are laying the basis for a similar lawsuit (the 4th circuit ruled in 2007 that, when a party is forced to nominate by primary, the party– not the state– decides who is eligible to vote in that primary).
I predict that, when such a suit reaches the US Supreme Court, the justices will strike down the state-mandated open primary.
How come a ZZZ group of Electors can not have a mail ballot among themselves and say MMM percent of them want A.B. or C.D. etc. for each office ???
Effect on independent Electors — about ZERO.
P.R. and App.V.