Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
>At 10:05 AM -0400 13/8/04, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>Actually, no, Bill, it's the result of a successful civil rights movement,
>>a result that was hard fought for with the lives of countless southern
>>blacks who died in the swamps of Mississippi and other places to
>>accomplish.
>
>That makes no sense to me. One of the problems with the system of
>primaries is that voters must register as supporters of a particular
>party, in order to be eligible to cast a vote in these primaries.
>Thus negating the secret ballot. This is bad enough for members of
>the working class, who face retaliation if they dare to declare
>themselves a supporter of a different party from their employer.
>(But face the prospect of not having a real choice at the election
>unless they do abandon their right to a secret ballot.)
>
>I can't imagine how it could be in the interests of "countless
>southern blacks" to support a system where they have to out
>themselves as supporters of a particular political party in order to
>ensure that such a political party can even get on the ballot.
>
>It is so wildly illogical, that progressive activists would favour
>such a system, I must assume you are making it up.
>
>>For most of American history, parties were closed in many ways, including
>>by excluding those of the wrong race. It took legal suits and, more
>>importantly, struggles by groups like the Mississippi Freedom Democratic
>>Party to establish the principle that anyone had the right to enter a
>>primary to run for office. This was followed by mobilization by the
>>McCarthy-Kennedy campaigns of 1968 and McGovern in 1972 to establish that
>>primaries, rather than closed party caucuses, would pick the nominee for
>>President.
>
>These laws restricting ballot access in the US seem to date back to
>the 19th century. Open primary ballot legislation was apparently
>first introduced in in the 1890's. I don't know the full history,
>but it certainly dates back further than the 1960's or 70's, once
>again you are obfuscating.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk