Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (683522)	5/25/2005 9:56:58 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

I never could quite figure out how parties are supposed to determine their nominees when they let everybody else vote in their primaries. I can only conclude that people as stupid as Patsy are designing the process. But the Mad Cow, nevertheless, failed BIG TIME in the Republican primaries of 2000, and was still relatively obscure at the time. Today he is the most famous moron/turncoat in America, and a disgrace to a nation at war, as well as the Republican party. A LOT of Republicans will be disappointed if he drops out before they can vote against him in THEIR state. Bring him ON!!!...

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (683522)	5/26/2005 4:09:03 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"When you allow cross over voting, you encourage voters to become pernicious with disposable votes." Eh????????? What the Hell are you talking about? FUSION VOTING is not the same as 'cross-over voting'. It has NOTHING to do with the Parties' respective primaries or conventions. FUSION VOTING refers to when a Party chooses to endorse the candidate of ANOTHER PARTY in the GENERAL ELECTION (while having a line on the ballot for their own Party). The example I gave was the Conservative Party in NY. If say, the Conservative Party ENDORSED the Republican candidate in the general election --- then anyone who voted the straight Conservative ticket would also be voting for that same Republican ticket. The important differences are that: 1) The Republican candidate would SEE how many of his votes came from Conservative-registered voters (& so would be more likely to pay attention to the needs and desires of those Conservative voters, and the Party platform of the Conservatives... else he might not get those votes the next time around, and the Dem candidate might win.) This increases the influence of the Conservative Party. 2) The Conservative Party (or the Libertarians, or the Greens, etc.) keeps it's registered members... making it's access to the ballot EASIER the next election cycle. This is how a Party can GROW. (This is how Parties grew in the nineteenth century.) For another example: the Libertarian Party might not have competative, respectable candidates for EVERY SINGLE race, from dog catcher to President. With legal fusion voting, they can choose to only run only their BEST candidates for targeted races... while ENDORSING Republican or Democratic candidates for other races where they are not fielding candidates, endorsing candidates who most closely hew to the 'low tax, limited government' platform of the Libertarians. This is how Parties USED to be able to grow organically, and get their ideas out before the public --- until the Democrat/Republican oligopoly (with the connivence of the Supreme Court) blocked it, and REDUCED the vitality and political freedoms in our country.