Maybe its just me...

[Paul10]

....

[tomveil]

The fact that WY just chose Romney and Hunter pretty much blows your assertions about the people there out of the water. If they're so much against federal control why did they not vote for Ron Paul?????

The people didn't get to vote.

[Max_in_WA]

.... They do not have any right to ensure that parties nominate Candidate A vs Candidate B by creating some bogus "standard" process and some spurious new "right" that you think you have to have a full ballot of choices that you like......

You're touching on some comments others have made -- albeit indirectly -- about the parties being private organizations with the right to choose their candidates the way they want.

I think that would be fine IF there were methods for third parties to actually get on the ballots. You've heard Ron Paul complain about how difficult it is just to get on the ballot in some states if you are a 3d party candidate.

So we have a situation where the parties get the benefit of being private organizations given a virtual monopoly on our election system. I don't really see that as fair. If they want to be monopolies, they need some regulation. Otherwise we get what we've been getting. If the parties don't want to be regulated, then it must be easier for third parties to get on the ballot.

Something has to give, because this two party monopoly just isn't working.

[Max_in_WA]

Voter turnout was 80%+ in the 19th century when rules were wildly local and national party organizations were almost non-existent......

Clearly, people are fed up with the "no choice" they have between dumb and dumber. I don't think it's pure laziness that keeps people away -- I know many people who are smart but totally apathetic because time and time again, our nomination process gives a "Bush v. Kerry" type race.

This is a symptom as I mentioned earlier, of the parties having near monopoly control over the ballots, and the incredible level of 3d party exclusion. If we had a 5 way race, you'd probably get a lot more turnout, real discussion of ideas, and a better result overall.

As it is, we get big spender D for a while, then big spender R for a while, and so on with no real change ever, just further consolidation of power. If the parties want to remain monopolies, then primary reform is in order. If they don't want to reform, then their stranglehold on ballots should be released so we can to some real debate in this country.

[Kalitechne]

That's what we're fighting for though isn't it? States rights and all...let each state have their own laws and systems so that the marketplace of ideas eventually brings forth the successes.

The whole "party" system is screwed up anyway.

This would be true, in my opinion, only if the consequences remained in a particular state, but here there are consequences for the entire country. Shouldn't the selection of the federal government be more uniform? Meaning....a state could probably choose whatever selection process it wants for state government, but I really think primaries should be the standard for all states here because what we're really talking about is the shaping of the federal government. Besides, primaries are more democratic and don't have the same factor of peer pressure as caususes do. In a way, caucuses are like the political equivalent of gang confrontations.

[J Free]

The fact that WY just chose Romney and Hunter pretty much blows your assertions about the people there out of the water. If they're so much against federal control why did they not vote for Ron Paul?????

Why did Ron Paul pull out of attending the Presidential Forum there in September - with the precinct captains who actually voted today? Hunter, Thompson, and Brownback attended. Romney has been seriously active (with the help of the significant Mormon population).