Should the Public pay for Primary Elections?

Innoc · 09-30-2007, 07:07 PM

Since Primary Elections only seems to benefit the two major parties should the public be paying for the cost of conducting them? Or should that cost be carried by those two parties if it's so important that they happen? Why should the public bear the cost of them sorting out who they're going to run for office?

BinaryLife · 09-30-2007, 08:42 PM

I'm not sure. I think it would be nice for the public to take off the load of the parties. Not because they deserver it, but it would keep them from going to sponsors and lobbyists. The more money theyneed the more money they need to borrow, and unfortuneatly it's usualy paid back with "favors."

But I could also be completely mis understanding the way the system works. So I'm sticking with not sure on this one.

Ihmhi · 09-30-2007, 08:55 PM

I wish monopoly laws applied to political parties. Things are not going to get better anytime soon with a two party system that holds a combined 95ish% of the vote. ):<

Surrealistik · 09-30-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

I wish monopoly laws applied to political parties. Things are not going to get better anytime soon with a two party system that holds a combined 95ish% of the vote. ):<

QFT.

Personally I like the idea of public funding for parties, for precisely the reasons BinaryLife mentioned. It's one of the better ways to reduce conflicts of interest, corruption and undue influence on politicians via corporations, advocacy/lobbyist groups, and other organizations whose dollars vastly outweigh the votes they directly have to offer.

Innoc · 09-30-2007, 09:29 PM

With most States having some form of a closed Primary system I think it's one more element that serves to keep the big 2 out in front.

Christian · 09-30-2007, 09:32 PM

Two major parties? AFAIK, we have 13 parties in the parliament.

Surrealistik · 09-30-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

With most States having some form of a closed Primary system I think it's one more element that serves to keep the big 2 out in front.

Yet another thing that needs to change.

Innoc · 09-30-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrealistik

Yet another thing that needs to change.

That was actually the point I was making....I am guessing that most people aren't presently aware that the public pays for the Primary's to be conducted?

Ihmhi · 09-30-2007, 09:39 PM

He is talking about the United States, which has two major political parties and a lot of minor ones.

When it comes to the federal government, there is the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The closest party to the big two (Republicans and Democrats) is the Independent Party. They have 1 senator (out of 100 total) and no representatives in the house (of 435).

From the numbers in the links, you can see how the other parties are small beans compared to the big boys.

As for running campaigns, I always thought the best rule for campaigning was to ban all private funding. For the Presidental Elections, for instance, say each individual can contribute up to $2,000 to one candidate. If the people are their only source of legal income, they might actually listen to us. It would work to remove special interests and pay to play. And that is exactly why it will never happen. ):

Christian · 09-30-2007, 09:40 PM

Yes, I think the public should fund the elections. I don't want Venstre to keep sitting on the power, because I think Anders Fogh is a horrible prime minister. If they were to fund the elections themselves, other smaller parties like Red-Green Alliance would die out, simply due to lack of donations and support. While I don't agree with their politics, I find this necessary for our representative democracy to function.

Surrealistik · 09-30-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

That was actually the point I was making....

Of course. What I'm saying is that public funding is a good idea, but it should be more inclusive.

Christian · 09-30-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

He is talking about the United States, which has two major political parties and a lot of minor ones.

No, I'm pretty sure he's talking about Denmark, which have two major parties, and also many minor parties. Granted, many of the smaller parties aren't even in the parliament, they are still "legit", like the nazi party.

A Boojum Snark · 09-30-2007, 09:50 PM

I picked no, because of the two it's the one I prefer. However I don't think they should be allowed to use the national polling system for their own intra-party decisions even if they pay for it. It just shouldn't be allowed, let them decide for themselves.

Surrealistik · 09-30-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian

No, I'm pretty sure he's talking about Denmark, which have two major parties, and also many minor parties. Granted, many of the smaller parties aren't even in the parliament, they are still "legit", like the nazi party.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoc

With most States having some form of a closed Primary system I think it's one more element that serves to keep the big 2 out in front.

Does Denmark have States though?

Christian · 09-30-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrealistik

Does Denmark have States though?

Sort of, I guess Denmark's "regions" it would translate into states; Northern Jutland, Central Jutland, Southern Denmark, Zealand and The Capital.

uBeR · 09-30-2007, 10:11 PM

There is no formal independence party in the United States, which is why it's not capitalized like Democrat or Republican.

Innoc · 09-30-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrealistik

Does Denmark have States though?

I live in Nevada.

Christian · 10-01-2007, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innoc

I live in Nevada.

No such thing.

fishBurger · 10-01-2007, 06:48 AM

I know who wins this thread!

ekiM · 10-01-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrealistik

Does Denmark have States though?

Denmark is a state!

View Poll Results: Should the public pay for primary elections?
No, let those parties that want a primary pay for it.	10	52.63%
Yes, for some reason the public should pay for it.	3	15.79%
No clue, when will grens for TF2 out?	5	26.32%
I 'd say "I think" but then everyone knows I'd be lying.	1	5.26%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

09-30-2007, 07:07 PM	#1
Innoc Hitman 2 1 Actual Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "Oscar Mike" Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO) Affiliations: Your Mom Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times	Should the Public pay for Primary Elections? Since Primary Elections only seems to benefit the two major parties should the public be paying for the cost of conducting them? Or should that cost be carried by those two parties if it's so important that they happen? Why should the public bear the cost of them sorting out who they're going to run for office? __________________ Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few. You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

09-30-2007, 08:55 PM	#3
Ihmhi [AE] 0112 Ihmhi SJB Wiki Team Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Newark, NJ, United States Class/Position: A little bit o' everythin' Gametype: Also a little bit o' everythin' Affiliations: [AE] Asseater, SJB Straight Jacket Brigade Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times	I wish monopoly laws applied to political parties. Things are not going to get better anytime soon with a two party system that holds a combined 95ish% of the vote. ):< __________________ Support FF: Anime: The Thread: Reloaded The one and only anime thread on these here forums. Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.

09-30-2007, 09:29 PM	#5
Innoc Hitman 2 1 Actual Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: "Oscar Mike" Gametype: FPS or RTS (just say NO to MMO) Affiliations: Your Mom Posts Rated Helpful 8 Times	With most States having some form of a closed Primary system I think it's one more element that serves to keep the big 2 out in front. __________________ Mooga on Obama: He can cut taxes. Actually do something useful. Punch Nancy Pelosi in the face. Just to name a few. You eventually run out of other people's money to spend.

09-30-2007, 09:39 PM	#9
Ihmhi [AE] 0112 Ihmhi SJB Wiki Team Fortress Forever Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Newark, NJ, United States Class/Position: A little bit o' everythin' Gametype: Also a little bit o' everythin' Affiliations: [AE] Asseater, SJB Straight Jacket Brigade Posts Rated Helpful 3 Times	He is talking about the United States, which has two major political parties and a lot of minor ones. When it comes to the federal government, there is the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The closest party to the big two (Republicans and Democrats) is the Independent Party. They have 1 senator (out of 100 total) and no representatives in the house (of 435). From the numbers in the links, you can see how the other parties are small beans compared to the big boys. As for running campaigns, I always thought the best rule for campaigning was to ban all private funding. For the Presidental Elections, for instance, say each individual can contribute up to $2,000 to one candidate. If the people are their only source of legal income, they might actually listen to us. It would work to remove special interests and pay to play. And that is exactly why it will never happen. ): __________________ Support FF: Anime: The Thread: Reloaded The one and only anime thread on these here forums. Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.

09-30-2007, 08:42 PM	#2
BinaryLife Posts: 1 bajillion D&A Member Wiki Team Join Date: Mar 2007 Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 5 Times	I'm not sure. I think it would be nice for the public to take off the load of the parties. Not because they deserver it, but it would keep them from going to sponsors and lobbyists. The more money theyneed the more money they need to borrow, and unfortuneatly it's usualy paid back with "favors." But I could also be completely mis understanding the way the system works. So I'm sticking with not sure on this one.

09-30-2007, 09:32 PM	#6
Christian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Denmark Class/Position: O Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Two major parties? AFAIK, we have 13 parties in the parliament.

09-30-2007, 09:40 PM	#10
Christian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Denmark Class/Position: O Gametype: CTF Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Yes, I think the public should fund the elections. I don't want Venstre to keep sitting on the power, because I think Anders Fogh is a horrible prime minister. If they were to fund the elections themselves, other smaller parties like Red-Green Alliance would die out, simply due to lack of donations and support. While I don't agree with their politics, I find this necessary for our representative democracy to function.

09-30-2007, 09:50 PM	#13
A Boojum Snark Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts Rated Helpful 4 Times	I picked no, because of the two it's the one I prefer. However I don't think they should be allowed to use the national polling system for their own intra-party decisions even if they pay for it. It just shouldn't be allowed, let them decide for themselves.

09-30-2007, 10:11 PM	#16
uBeR Not ****** Yet D&A Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Minnesota Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	There is no formal independence party in the United States, which is why it's not capitalized like Democrat or Republican. __________________ OCCUPATION 101. *One would think a simple task would be, well, simple. Maybe not for simpletons.*

10-01-2007, 06:48 AM	#19
fishBurger get off my lawn Join Date: Mar 2007 Class/Position: O scout / demo Gametype: killing Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I know who wins this thread! __________________ That means that either you are an American, or you are NOT an American. There is no hyphenated exception. -Iggy

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)