HI Dem Party: WTF are they thinking??

[Pua'i Mana'o]

I wanna know who's bright idea is this (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/NEWS01/712120427)!

this really bugs me:

"The party is tired of having unknown people nominating its candidates by a secret, shadowy process," said Tony Gill, a labor attorney who is prepared to file suit against the state on the party's behalf. "Here's another way of putting it: You don't let another team pick your quarterback."

effffffffff yoooooouuu. :mad:

I pick my candidates with the power of my vote because I believe in that candidate's qualifications, political position, and leadership, and I have the right to vote for those Democrat candidates who happen to fit that bill because it is MY right, not "your" team! What next? The party filing suit becuase they are tired that citizens are doing their actual voting in secret, shadowy voting booths?

What the hell is happening to my beloved Democratic Party?!?!?!

Where's my beloved old civics book; some fascist @$$h*!3 needs it upside his head!

stupidstupidstupid!

[scrivener]

If it is truly "your" Democratic party, perhaps you should register as a member of the party. That's all the party is trying to say. These open primaries let anyone vote for the candidate in any party; this means that if I'm quite certain a candidate I like is going to get my own party's nomination, I can vote in the opposing party's primary for the candidate I think will have the worst chance against my favorite.

My position is that your vote is your vote, and you should be able to cast it for whomever you like for whatever reason you like. But if we are going to have a party system, should the membership of that party decide who's going to represent it in the general election?

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that it's the Democrats who bring this up, since they are the party of the majority. The Republicans always seemed to me to be the party most likely to be adversely affected by the "open" primaries, since Republicans voting in the Republican party could conceivably be outvoted in their own primaries by Democrats casting malicious votes on the Republican ballot.

Does it matter? I guess you, Pua`i, think it doesn't. But what is the point of having a party of like-minded voters if differently minded people are free to "help" you select your candidate?

[sinjin]

I didn't realize Hawaii allowed this in the first place. Why would anyone who is sympathetic to a party's platform, let alone a member of that party, want members of the opposition to be able to vote on who will be the party's candidate? It seems nuts. What am I missing?

[scrivener]

Well, one thing you might be missing is that when we had closed primaries, not very many people voted in primaries, meaning a ridiculously small minority got to choose the people who'd be on the general ballot, which is not quite as democratic a process as allowing people at least to choose which party they like better in a given year.

For example, if party membership were required for voting in the primary, I'd register as a Libertarian. But in this upcoming Presidential election, there is a major-party candidate whom I would REALLY like to see in the general. I care enough about it to pull a Democratic ballot in next year's primary, but I'm not sure I'm willing to register as a member of that accursed party.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

I didn't realize Hawaii allowed this in the first place. Why would anyone who is sympathetic to a party's platform, let alone a member of that party, want members of the opposition to be able to vote on who will be the party's candidate? It seems nuts. What am I missing?

In our primaries, all choices show up on the same ballot and are color-coded by party. Voters take their ballot and can only choose one color block from which to vote. There are years where I have chosen to vote Dem and others were I choose Republican, all based on the races where I believe that my vote is of the most consequence.

In the last election we had a hotly-contested senatorial race between the perennial Sen, Daniel Akaka and the respected up&coming US Rep Ed Case. Residents with all sorts of personal political beliefs voted Democrat because it was in our Primary that the race was really decided, as both candidates are Dems.

Is it arguable that HI residents vote their whims? Or is it that we are smart enough to have a progressive voting system allowing our residents to participate fully in both the primary and general. I believe it is the latter. Particularly as the Dem party has only a 3% registered membership, status quo is no deterrent to getting their candidates elected.

[Kittrick]

I wanna know who's bright idea is this (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/NEWS01/712120427)!

this really bugs me:



effffffffff yoooooouuu. :mad:

I pick my candidates with the power of my vote because I believe in that candidate's qualifications, political position, and leadership, and I have the right to vote for those Democrat candidates who happen to fit that bill because it is MY right, not "your" team! What next? The party filing suit becuase they are tired that citizens are doing their actual voting in secret, shadowy voting booths?

What the hell is happening to my beloved Democratic Party?!?!?!

Where's my beloved old civics book; some fascist @$$h*!3 needs it upside his head!

stupidstupidstupid!

If you read your civics book, if it was a good one, you'd also see that this is a fairly common practice.

How do I know this?

The system we have in place is called the "Electoral College", and it consists of electors...from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College) :

Electors are chosen in a series of state elections held on the same day (election day). The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators (always two) and its U.S. Representatives; the District of Columbia has three electoral votes. In each state, voters vote for a slate of pre-selected candidates for Presidential Elector, representing the various candidates for President.

Which brings me to the question, how do you get "pre-selected"?

What this also means is that you vote for President, and the "elector" is supposed to represent your vote, and cast their vote the way you voted. It's happened once, but the electors in 1836 changed their votes from what the populous voted in Virginia.

People think that they are voting by popular vote, but they are actually influencing some party's faithful who is an elector to vote the way of the people. I've gone round and round with co-workers who don't believe elections aren't by popular vote. The local ones are though...but I'm sure that there is a lot of favors doled out and paybacks in the form of stumps and support, which would prevent less popular people in the party from running, even if they may be more electable.

Having the voting out in the open for candidates isn't necessarily a bad thing...

[zztype]

I think they should let the private citizens vote once FOR EACH PARTY on the ballot. You can vote for your Donkey of Choice AND your Elephant of Choice, and even for a couple of the other guys, if you felt like it.

They should also count the blank votes as NO votes, like they do for ConCon. That'll light a fire under 'em! :)

[Pua'i Mana'o]

I am quite aware that how we handle our primaries is one area where Hawaii leads the nation. We may be more expensive, have a zillion things wrong with this/that politically, but when it comes to our elections, I am proud of how much Hawaii rocks.

If you read your civics book...
Having the voting out in the open for candidates isn't necessarily a bad thing...

[timkona]

Just keep voting for whichever liberal suits your fancy. 60 years of corruption, incompetence, and "ol boys" must taste delicious by now. :cool:

[kamuelakea]

Another of the endless last gasps of the Hawaii Plantation culture trying to maintain total control.

Not surprising but good sign that they are dying.

[GeckoGeek]

The system we have in place is called the "Electoral College"

You're talking about the US Presidential race. It's the only one with an Electoral College.

I think we're talking about local elections.



We used to have to pre-register for our ballot. I don't remember how far in advance we had to select. Nor do I remember why the change. Perhaps it infringed on the secret ballot concept since the staff at polls had to know to place the correct ballot in your packet.

Really, the only difference between then and now is when you had to decide which party to vote for. In the old system it was done in advance. Currently it's done in the voting booth. It doesn't necessarily change the issue. I can still register as a Democrat (because that's where all the action is in this state) even though I tend to favor the Republicans.

So I think the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot. Sadly, they seem to be gifted at doing that.

[TuNnL]

is it that we are smart enough to have a progressive voting system allowing our residents to participate fully in both the primary and general.Hopefully, you realize that both you and Scrivener/sinjin have illustrated compelling reasons to both keep and end open primaries. Neither of your arguments cancel the other one out. (I’m not saying I support a lawsuit, just that there is ample room for debate here.)

[sinjin]

Has not this system over the years effectively blocked any real chance for Republicans in Hawaii?

[scrivener]

Actually, no. The Democratic races in the primaries have been hot and heavy, so it's been a LOT more likely that Republicans have voted in the Democratic primaries than the other way around; as you'd imagine with a minority party, it has been far less likely that the Republicans of any stature have opposed each other in primaries, rather than spread themselves out amongst the available offices. This is especially true in cases like last year's election, where the incumbent governor was a Republican. Since there was no real opposition for Lingle, I'd bet a lot of Republicans voted for the Democrats they thought least likely to be successful against their already determined candidate.

[GeckoGeek]

I'd bet a lot of Republicans voted for the Democrats they thought least likely to be successful against their already determined candidate.

Maybe. But I'd rather not risk that. The Dems in the past have been quite skilled in putting an almost unknown into office. If I vote for a lame Dem, I just might get my wish - only to see them elected to office.

But again, what the Dems propose won't solve anything. There is no "thought test" to insure all those who register for their party will really vote the party line. What are they going to do?

[Kittrick]

You're talking about the US Presidential race. It's the only one with an Electoral College.

I think we're talking about local elections.



We used to have to pre-register for our ballot. I don't remember how far in advance we had to select. Nor do I remember why the change. Perhaps it infringed on the secret ballot concept since the staff at polls had to know to place the correct ballot in your packet.

Really, the only difference between then and now is when you had to decide which party to vote for. In the old system it was done in advance. Currently it's done in the voting booth. It doesn't necessarily change the issue. I can still register as a Democrat (because that's where all the action is in this state) even though I tend to favor the Republicans.

So I think the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot. Sadly, they seem to be gifted at doing that.

I went into local elections at the end of my original post. My point was that the national system seems to be alive and well on the local level, because it seems that because the local way of choosing the candidates that appear on the ballot seem to be "pre-selected" in a secret shadowy process...just like how we end up with electors for president.

[GeckoGeek]

it seems that because the local way of choosing the candidates that appear on the ballot seem to be "pre-selected" in a secret shadowy process...just like how we end up with electors for president.

I don't think there is anything preventing anyone from throwing their hat into the ring and getting on the primary ballot. They just have to jump though the hoops to be a registered whatever to appear on that party's ballot.

However, the more practical candidates know they need support. Depending on the vibes they get during networking, they may not file.

In other words, anyone can run, but only those who have backing get talked about. If someone doesn't get talked about, they have a snowball's chance of getting elected.

However, if someone can't network and build support - they are not going to be effective in office.

[1stwahine]

I don't think there is anything preventing anyone from throwing their hat into the ring and getting on the primary ballot. They just have to jump though the hoops to be a registered whatever to appear on that party's ballot.

However, the more practical candidates know they need support. Depending on the vibes they get during networking, they may not file.

In other words, anyone can run, but only those who have backing get talked about. If someone doesn't get talked about, they have a snowball's chance of getting elected.

However, if someone can't network and build support - they are not going to be effective in office.

Exacto Mundo!

I usually don't quote the whole shabang but what you said is the Truth!

Bravo!

Auntie Lynn

[scrivener]

Maybe. But I'd rather not risk that. The Dems in the past have been quite skilled in putting an almost unknown into office. If I vote for a lame Dem, I just might get my wish - only to see them elected to office.

But again, what the Dems propose won't solve anything. There is no "thought test" to insure all those who register for their party will really vote the party line. What are they going to do?
Two good points. I value my own one vote enormously and won't throw it away on infantile voting shenanigans such as I described earlier, so why should I think others would value theirs any less?

And yes. The party can publicly disown a candidate, but it cannot regulate who's registering.

[TuNnL]

I value my own one vote enormously and won't throw it away on infantile voting shenanigans such as I described earlier, so why should I think others would value theirs any less?One word for you: Bula‘ia. :D

[scrivener]

One word for you: Bula‘ia. :D
Really. But even that wasn't a total throw-away vote, if you ask me. He tried to run as a Green, but what he really is is a Libertarian. Even if only a single-issue Libertarian (legalize marijuana). One thing that impressed me about Bu, especially the first time he tried to run, was that the guy thinks quickly on his feet and has excellent comic timing. It disappointed me that he'd been disqualified and that he'd used his brother's name in filing the paperwork, but that underscored what (for me) is a big part of my own libertarianism (lower-case L intentional): Why should he have HAD to pretend to be his brother? The age restriction on elected officials is stupid, and the Bu La`ia thing inspired me to write an opinion piece about it in our college paper.

I still feel that way. Let the voters decide who's fit for office, not some stupid body of legislators who pick an arbitrary minimum age.

:) Sorry. In citing Bu, you hit one of my buttons!

[Leo Lakio]

One word for you: Bula‘ia. :DRealistically, however, is it "throwing away" your vote if you use it to make a statement of protest when voting for a candidate that you doubt can really win?

What if candidates who are considered jokes actually draw enough support to win, as happens when people are fed up with the candidates of the two major parties? Remember Jesse Ventura in Minnesota?

[1stwahine]

What if candidates who are considered jokes actually draw enough support to win, as happens when people are fed up with the candidates of the two major parties? Remember Jesse Ventura in Minnesota?

heheheh

What if candidates who are considered jokes actually draw enough support to win....;)

Remember my name. Alyn Vasquez

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Auntie Lynn

[anapuni808]

If those of you who are posting here would go back & read the newspaper article again, you would see that there is MUCH opposition to this lawsuit amongst the members of the Democratic Party. As a member of the party and a State Central Committee member (we make the rules for the party), I know this to be fact.

There also is a clear distinction between registering to vote as a Dem or Repub and actually joining & becoming a card-carrying member of either party.

ok - carry on.

[scrivener]

If those of you who are posting here would go back & read the newspaper article again, you would see that there is MUCH opposition to this lawsuit amongst the members of the Democratic Party.
I'm sorry; I did read the article, and at your semi-condescending urging I read it again. The article itself does not state that there is "MUCH" opposition to the lawsuit amongst party members, only that "some" office-holders wish it to be held back, and that "many" of the elected leaders (emphasis mine) fear that it would be a tactical blunder. Note that there is a difference between considering something a "mistake" and being opposed to its ideology.

Of course, one might expect the elected office-holders to be hesitant; they were elected during open primaries, so clearly the system works for them.

I would like to say that Pua`i's complaint is worth getting worked up about, whether there's a difference between "much opposition" and "many elected leaders" or not. The article makes it plain that it is the party's position that a lawsuit should be filed.


As a member of the party and a State Central Committee member (we make the rules for the party), I know this to be fact.
Okay. That's different. You know I respect you, and if you say there is "MUCH" opposition, I believe you. My question (and you don't have to answer, but I'm just really into these kinds of things) is: Will the party, if it truly believes the open primaries are unconstitutional, continue with the suit anyway, even if its elected leaders (among them the venerable Senator Inouye, whom I also respect) think it might in the long run be tactically unwise?


There also is a clear distinction between registering to vote as a Dem or Repub and actually joining & becoming a card-carrying member of either party.
Yes. This I am aware of, but which is it that the party is saying should be allowed to vote? The article says, "Restricting the primary to card-carrying Democrats only, Caldwell and other elected leaders worry, could alienate voters who favor Democrats on issues but may not want to reveal their party preference for privacy or cultural reasons." This seems to imply that the party wants only card-carrying members to decide who will represent their party.

I think a very strong case could be made for that, of course, but I also see the ideological case for the other side, which I have already explained.

[anapuni808]

Scriv - you & I read the same article but perhaps interpreted it differently. Possibly because I was aware of the facts behind the article, the things not included in the article and the agenda of the person who probably leaked the story to the newspaper.

I shouldn't have assumed everyone would interpret the article the same way I did.

Being a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party - yes, I would like to be sure that everyone voting for a democratic candidate supports the party platform. I would like to be sure that every person elected as a democrat supports the party platform. Is that realistic? No, probably not.

Right now, there is a long way to go before the lawsuit could ever become law - possibly all the way to the US Supreme Court. There are many reasons for this - one is that this lawsuit could set precedent for other states that have primaries like ours.

If folks are concerned about this issue - join the party. Make your voices count. Believe me - this forum is not the right venue to object to the lawsuit. What has happened today is exactly what was planned: a knee jerk reaction to something without providing many facts. It's called smoke & mirrors, manipulation - whatever you want to call it. It's a tactic used constantly in campaigns & we see it every day & many people fall for what they read in the paper or hear on TV. It's very effective isn't it?

[GeckoGeek]

This seems to imply that the party wants only card-carrying members to decide who will represent their party.

Hmmmm. So I'd have to be a card carrying member of a party just to vote in the primary? That would sure alienate me.

Edit:


Hawaii Consititution
ARTICLE II Section 4
The legislature shall provide for the registration of voters and for absentee voting and shall prescribe the method of voting at all elections. Secrecy of voting shall be preserved; provided that no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election. Secrecy of voting and choice of political party affiliation or nonpartisanship shall be preserved.

I can't see how what they want is legal.

[sinjin]

Hmmmm. So I'd have to be a card carrying member of a party just to vote in the primary? That would sure alienate me. I can't see how what they want is legal.
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/000906.php

[sinjin]

A third alternative is the "modified closed primary", as has been in effect in California since 2001. In California's primary, each political party may decide whether or not they wish to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their party's primary. This appears to avoid the constitutional flaws of both the "open" and the "closed" primary as discussed above. In the 2004 and 2006 primary elections, the Republican, Democratic, and American Independent parties all opted to allow unaffiliated voters to request their party's ballot. However, for the 2008 presidential primary election, only the Democratic and American Independent parties took this option, while the Republican party did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primary

[GeckoGeek]

In California's primary, each political party may decide whether or not they wish to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their party's primary. This appears to avoid the constitutional flaws of both the "open" and the "closed" primary as discussed above.

How so? It would seem I'd have to declare affiliation to vote with a party that had closed - I see that as a violation of Hawaii State Constitution.

[scrivener]

A closed primary makes all kinds of ideological sense. Nobody is saying you don't have a say in the process if you don't want to be a member of the party. The whole idea of a primary is to decide who's going to represent the PARTY in the election. Let's say you're a Kennedy and your family wants to put SOMEONE in office to represent that family's best interest. It's a wealthy, powerful family and whoever the family chooses is likely to advance to the general. Do you want others to participate in this family's dinner-table discussions about which of you should run? Of course not. It's none of their business until there's actually a general election (unless they're a member of the party, in which case they can accept or reject whomever your family eventually chooses).

We seem to have forgotten what the purpose of a primary election is. I usually vote Libertarian and that seldom makes any kind of difference in the results, but if a bunch of non-Libertarians wanted, it wouldn't take many of them to really mess up the primary for such a small party. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

I've worked at the polls a few times, and I always have to explain this to voters. They want to vote for candidates they like, which makes sense, but it's a PRIMARY ELECTION. If people you like are running in different parties, you're out of luck. We voters seem to want the primary to be more of a first elimination round (which it is in Honolulu City elections, which are non-partisan). A case could be made for that, but if that's what we want, we need to get rid of partisan elections for all offices.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

If this lawsuit goes through and puts our primaries back to "how it was", then right before every election, I will register with whichever party is hosting the candidate for whose race I consider most crucial.

I believe in the Democratic Party's platform (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html) on the most idealistic, fundamental level. In practice, there have been races where the best candidate is NOT a Dem--on the local, state and fed levels this has been true. I vote by conscience first, political affiliation second.

[sinjin]

How so? It would seem I'd have to declare affiliation to vote with a party that had closed - I see that as a violation of Hawaii State Constitution.How would you feel about allowing citizens of other countries to vote in our elections?

[craigwatanabe]

I know...instead of primaries and general elections we should just make the elections a reality show:

WHO WANTS TO BE THE GOVERNOR?

We have debates and the local media forms the judging panel. One by one contestants are eliminated until the end of the season where YOU the general public can call or TXT MSG your choice for our next governor!:D

[sinjin]

I know...instead of primaries and general elections we should just make the elections a reality show:

WHO WANTS TO BE THE GOVERNOR?

We have debates and the local media forms the judging panel. One by one contestants are eliminated until the end of the season where YOU the general public can call or TXT MSG your choice for our next governor!:DI'd be willing to experiment with populating Congress the same way they handle jury duty.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

I know...instead of primaries and general elections we should just make the elections a reality show:

WHO WANTS TO BE THE GOVERNOR?

We have debates and the local media forms the judging panel. One by one contestants are eliminated until the end of the season where YOU the general public can call or TXT MSG your choice for our next governor!:D

ask any OHA employee and they might say its how their bosses get elected...:p

[craigwatanabe]

ask any OHA employee and they might say its how their bosses get elected...:p

Seems that's how we get elected officials in office nowdays. It's not what the person knows, it's in name recognition.

[Kittrick]

I'd be willing to experiment with populating Congress the same way they handle jury duty.

That's a scary proposition because 1 in 2 people really don't vote. Most people I know hate jury duty as it is, so we'd have people who wouldn't vote and wouldn't want to be there making a really important decision? scary.

[sinjin]

That's a scary proposition because 1 in 2 people really don't vote. Most people I know hate jury duty as it is, so we'd have people who wouldn't vote and wouldn't want to be there making a really important decision? scary.If jury duty came with a substantial expense account I think resistance might vanish.:D Besides, it wouldn't have to be mandatory.

[TuNnL]

If those of you who are posting here would go back & read the newspaper article again, you would see that there is MUCH opposition to this lawsuit amongst the members of the Democratic Party.I have to agree with Scrivener, that the average joe reading this article would NOT conclude there is “MUCH opposition to this lawsuit.” I’m sure as a member of the central committee, you may know otherwise, but how many Honolulu Advertiser readers even know what the committee is, Fran? The bottom line is, DePledge didn’t detail the magnitude of statewide opposition in the article. :rolleyes:

[GeckoGeek]

Originally Posted by GeckoGeek
How so? It would seem I'd have to declare affiliation to vote with a party that had closed - I see that as a violation of Hawaii State Constitution.

How would you feel about allowing citizens of other countries to vote in our elections?

That's beside the point. Either there's a way to accomplish this that I can't think of or what they want is against the state constitution.

You don't change the state constitution by going to court. Something isn't adding up here.

[Leo Lakio]

we'd have people ... who wouldn't want to be there making a really important decision?Considering the incompetence of so many career politicians, I'd be up for seeing how some people do when they are forced to participate in civic responsibilities, rather than entering political life just for the perks of being in an elective office.