Art Vandelay wrote:
Metroid wrote:Have candidates party affiliated but not voters?
I actually may not mind that, but then we're right back to whether or not the party and its members should have control over who the candidate is. In a perfect world, your idea would be a fine solution, unfortunately, we live in a world where a vote-for-the-worst campaign would definitely be waged by the opposition. That already happened in 2008 in states with open primaries. Was it Rush Limbaugh who was getting his supporters to vote for Hillary instead of voting for a Republican candidate because he wanted to keep the Democratic side of the ticket in turmoil? It sucks that we're not always able to vote in the primary for the candidate we want to vote for in the general election, but I think the protections that the primary system provides are more important.
There was a movement by the republicans in 04 to try and get Sharpton voted in because he wouldn't have had a chance. I'm sure the Dems engage in that sort of nonsense as well. I see the reasoning for not allowing the different parties to vote because people who are hardcore democrat or hardcore republican are so ideological they can only think about their agenda, therefore they view it as some sort of competition rather than actually electing the most qualified. If all parties would have been allowed to vote in the different primaries the candidates would have been something like John Edwards and Fred Thompson...awesome.
I think I do see the point you are trying to make though Metroid and I agree. I wish most people would remain independent minded and vote for a candidate who they believe would be best for the country. I don't ever see this happening though. People are unwilling to bend on certain issues. Especially social issues.