Your votes are not private

[srkruzich]

Thank God there are laws to cover your attitude.  Now I'm out of this skunk match.

My attitudes fine. I just am pointing out that if someone takes a check for any large sum of money then their a fool if they don't check first before releasing property to verify funds.

I don't take checks, and i WON'T EVER take a Cashiers check from a bank. Cash only, and i'll be checking the bills with a counterfeit pen when i do.

[srkruzich]

as to the original topic, your selections are private, your party affiliation, etc isn't.  Thats how the political system works.  You're ok with big business and foreign governments lobbying our government, so this shouldn't be a big deal to you.

Why is it such a big deal for anyone to know my affiliation?

[Sarah]

Because then you wouldn't get all those really cool fire starters...eh, I mean flyers in the mail.  

[srkruzich]

well i still get them and i have no affiliation with any party.

[Sarah]

Well, then you're just fair game for every party.  *snicker*

[srkruzich]

Well i just get more firestarter then

[larryJ]

In the California primaries, you are given a ballot based on your party affiliation to weed out the most unpopular and send one candidate from your party on to the main election.  For that reason, they need to know your affiliation.  I always thought primary elections were somewhat unnecessary as the state could save a lot of money and just let everyone run for whatever seat they wanted in just one election.  But I guess there is a need to eliminate the unwashed prior to the big election.

Larryj

[srkruzich]

In the California primaries, you are given a ballot based on your party affiliation to weed out the most unpopular and send one candidate from your party on to the main election.  For that reason, they need to know your affiliation.  I always thought primary elections were somewhat unnecessary as the state could save a lot of money and just let everyone run for whatever seat they wanted in just one election.  But I guess there is a need to eliminate the unwashed prior to the big election.

Larryj

Well quite frankly thats discrimination against the voter.  I don't vote party lines for anyone.  If i like a dem in one gen election i expect to be able to vote for him over his other dem challengers.  Same with republicans or Non-affiliations.

I see it as a means of controlling the vote which is nothing more than vote tampering.

[larryJ]

I think you lost me there.  I guess I didn't explain it correctly.  Or I am just being dumb.  

In California, you declare a party affiliation, as I imagine just about everywhere else does.  When you go to the Primary, you are handed a ballot that is only for your party.  Meaning, if you are a Republican, you are given a Republican ballot and sent to a designated Republican voting machine.  At this point, you are weeding out the wannabes, and selecting the one person who will go to the general election.  At this point, you are voting party lines.  When you go to the general election, you are given a ballot that includes all those who made it through the primary process.  You can vote for whoever you want, be he Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc.  What I am trying to say is-------------I like Candidate A and vote for him in the primary.  He loses to Candidate B who goes on to the general election.  I detest Candidate B and look at the other party's candidates and try to decide which of the two evils is worse.  If there was no primary, then Candidate A will still be on the ballot and I could vote for him.  

I can't see how a Californian would win every time.  My candidate from California is good, but the candidate from --- say---Kansas is really great.  I didn't have a chance to vote for the Kansas candidate in my primary, but I will in the general election. The point is-why have a primary which is a waste of money when you are going to vote for someone from another state that you like better?

I think I am losing myself!

Larryj

[flintauqua]

If we didn't have primaries, then we would have to have multiple run-off elections before a candidiate would get a majority, or at least a large plurality.  Refer back to reply 17 of this thread for a novel approach to this problem.

Charles