Comments on: Important Case on Political Party Control Over Nominations May be Heard by 9th Circuit in August

By: BOB WAYNE

BOB WAYNE — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:28:38 +0000

steve and patsy gail this is supposed to be a political blog.

By: patsy gail

patsy gail — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:02:36 +0000

thanks for the information but i want to talk.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:11:28 +0000

patsy gail: You can e-mail me at oldsouthwest(at)aol.com.

By: patsy gail

patsy gail — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:02:08 +0000

STEVE WE NEED TO TALK GIVE ME YOUR PHONE NUMBER. THIS IS VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:39:12 +0000

Alaska– unlike Hawaii, Georgia, and Alabama– registers voters by party. It doesn’t make sense for a party to prevent one of its registered members from seeking its nomination.

Furthermore, the AIP voluntarily participates in a blanket primary with the Democrats and another minor party, which makes it possible for non-members to out-vote AIP members in choosing an AIP nominee.

The voters would not take kindly to a party replacing and/or rejecting a candidate who had won the party’s primary.

This suit really seems to be directed totally at DeNardo.

The “top two” will solve many of the world’s problems, won’t it, Jim R?

By: Jim R

Jim R — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:30:46 +0000

Re: #3. Are you saying that the State should not maintain membership rolls for political parties or conduct their nomination activities for them?

It sounds like Washington’s Top 2 system is the way out of this dilemma.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:33:17 +0000

The Helsinki Accords provide that participating governments (and we are a participating government) provide for “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:23:05 +0000

Nominations for PUBLIC office is PUBLIC business by PUBLIC Electors.

Sorry – not tolerable to have party hack monarchs / oligarchs determining general election candidates.

NO need for any party hack stuff whatever — primaries, caucuses, conventions.

Direct nominating petitions by ALL Electors for general election candidates.
P.R. and A.V.

Political *science* moves on — regardless of Stone Age brains stuck in the evil bad old days.

By: rob

rob — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:58:00 +0000

we just discussed this here in maine, and it sounds like basically if a yahoo tries to run for office with your party, the party needs to field someone to beat them in the primary, and that is the mechanism by which parties can legitimately protect their lineup. If not that, a NOTA line item may be the most appropriate mechanism?

allowing a committee, rather than the party membership, to just axe candidates at will seems a little anti-democratic, no?