Allow me a moment

[Daerio]

These are related because a primary is not a democratic or public selection. Parties ultimately choose who ever they want. If republicans announced Ted Cruz as the nominee at the convention or democrats nominate Biden... There is not a damn thing you can do about it. Because primaries are party exclusive... Not publicly inclusive... That's why the no vote states... That's why the delegates... That's why state rules so complicated and varied, that even Trump couldn't figure them out...

This tired argument doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny. If they're private organizations, why are they getting public funding to hold their primary elections? Literally, check and mate. Yet, we'll hear this argument again.

[Felya]

This tired argument doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny. If they're private organizations, why are they getting public funding to hold their primary elections? Literally, check and mate. Yet, we'll hear this argument again.

Uhm... Receiving public funds does not define the organizations as public. Who determines their rules? Who determines their leadership structure? Who dictates what to do with funding?

Them receiving public election funding is due to receiving 5% of the popular vote. Third parties, like green or libertarian, are the same thing as the two major parties. If they receive 5% of the popular vote, they would also receive public funding. You can start your own party, let's call it 'cry if you want to'. If you get 5%, you too would be "publicly funded". It's your party and you can 'cry if you want to'...

[Reeve]

I you want to change things you have to start at the election. You should also brace for a lot of pain, because change never happens without it.

You, you don't have to start at the election. The election is too late. You start with popular movements, and you make your push with the primaries. But the thing is that you can't just do it with the Presidential Primary. You have to do it with the senators and congressmen too. This is how the Tea Party has successfully managed to effect massive change in the Republican Party.

But you can't just try to get candidates you like better elected this way. If that's what you're doing, you'll end up right back where we are eventually, with two presidential candidates that both suck ass and no other viable alternatives. You have to make your movement about effecting change in how the voting system itself works. As long as it remains first past the post, you will ALWAYS have to vote for the lesser evil. Writing in a candidate that stands no chance doesn't send anyone a message. Choosing not to vote just makes you fade into the background with all the other people who choose not to vote. And the result is that you allow the greater evil to win.

Vote for the lesser evil in order to keep things from burning down while you try to affect REAL change. Change that's not just the momentary policies of the government, but change in how the government fundamentally works. Structural change.

You do that with movements and primaries, not individual throwaway votes.

[Daerio]

Uhm... Receiving public funds does not define the organizations as public. Who determines their rules? Who determines their leadership structure? Who dictates what to do with funding?

Them receiving public election funding is due to receiving 5% of the popular vote. Third parties, like green or libertarian, are the same thing as the two major parties. If they receive 5% of the popular vote, they would also receive public funding. You can start your own party, let's call it 'cry if you want to'. If you get 5%, you too would be "publicly funded". It's your party and you can 'cry if you want to'...

If anyone could do it, why aren't there a hundred parties with public funding?

Oh, right, because that's ridiculous.

[May90]

If anyone could do it, why aren't there a hundred parties with public funding?

Oh, right, because that's ridiculous.

Your logic doesn't make sense, mate. Parties can have both public and private funding. It alone does not make them public or private respectively. Anyone could do it, true; not everyone attempts to do though, and not everyone who attempts to do succeeds.

[-aiko-]

I guess that means you won't be voting for either Trump or Clinton since they're both broken.

That's what I'm doing. Neither is worth my vote, so neither will get my vote.

[TheDestinatus]

From an outsiders perspective what does it even matter if they have super delegates or nominations really? In Australia they don't even bother with any of that stuff, they just decide internally who they are going to put at the head of the party and even than the last few Prime Ministers have just been replaced by someone else anyway. Unless I am incorrect there is no reason why Sanders couldn't just run as an independent if he thought he was in for a shot. Whats the worst that can happen? He doesn't win? Because by not participating he didn't win anyway.

[Daerio]

Your logic doesn't make sense, mate. Parties can have both public and private funding. It alone does not make them public or private respectively. Anyone could do it, true; not everyone attempts to do though, and not everyone who attempts to do succeeds.

Your logic that the parties are private entities that can internally elect their own candidates while getting public election funding is what doesn't make sense. What defines something as a public entity? Well, under most circumstances, it's receiving taxpayers dollars.

From an outsiders perspective what does it even matter if they have super delegates or nominations really? In Australia they don't even bother with any of that stuff, they just decide internally who they are going to put at the head of the party and even than the last few Prime Ministers have just been replaced by someone else anyway. Unless I am incorrect there is no reason why Sanders couldn't just run as an independent if he thought he was in for a shot. Whats the worst that can happen? He doesn't win? Because by not participating he didn't win anyway.

How many party candidates run for president in Australia every cycle? Is it 2, (max) or sometimes 1, like we have here in America?

[hrugner]

The author seems like an absolute moron trying to convince himself that he is right by denying the validity of the arguments presented by people who disagree with him. People who don't stick with a party can make up their mind just fine, they decided the two parties are shit.

I hope his pathetic tantrum helped him deal with his big feelings so he can get on with his life.