The Powerless Often Want to Change the Rules
In early January, State Representative Eric Proctor (D-Tulsa) announced he would be sponsoring legislation to allow voters registered as independents to vote in the Democrat or Republican party primary elections. Quite a few states allow for this, and some states even allow members of the Democrat Party to vote in Republican primaries or the other way around. Either of these ideas are bad and result from a basic ignorance as to what political parties happen to be.
In Oklahoma we are so used to throwing around the political terms such as Democrats (I refuse to call them Democratic, as that speaks of process and not an organization) or Republicans, that we lose the basic comprehension that these are actually organizations, or clubs if you will. Each club has its own by-laws, rules and a platform which describes what it stands for. Each party is an organization of FREE WILL ASSOCIATION. You only join if you want to, you don't have to join to be a voter. Any person can register as an independent and vote in the general elections or on any issue or non-partisan race. You don't have to be a member of any political party to vote in these situations. But, you do have to be a member of a party to choose its nominees.
Nationally, and in Oklahoma, there are other political parties. They may name themselves The Constitution Party, The Libertarian Party, The Natural Law Party, The Green Party or some other handle, maybe something like The Independent Party or maybe even The Loser Party. Then of course there are people who don't want to be associated with any party, they usually call themselves independents.
In Oklahoma, we have state laws which govern the access people have to be on the ballot as a candidate. Our laws are very difficult, maybe too difficult, which control the legal recognition for a political party, at least as far as registration is concerned and when a party can be on the ballot. In Oklahoma, one or more persons can form a political party, but people can't register as such unless they first gather tens of thousands of signatures to get on the ballot. Then at least 10% of the people voting in a general election must vote for a candidate of said party in order for them to gain registration status. Once that is gained, people can then register as members of that particular political party. However, if none of their candidates obtain at least 10% of the vote in future general elections, said party will lose its ballot status and all those registered in said party will have their registrations changed to the status of an independent.
This occurred when Ross Perot was on the ballot in Oklahoma for his second run for president. The first time he ran, it was as an independent. He got over 20% of the vote, but had to collect signatures again to get on the ballot for a second time. The second time was when he ran as the candidate for the political party he formed. The second time he ran, he did get over 10% of the vote, which allowed Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster to be on the ballot as the candidates for the party formed by Perot, since Perot decided not to run a third time. However, Buchanan and Foster didn't get 10% of the vote and the handful of people who had registered as members of that party were changed to independents.
Political parties are supposed to stand for something, which is why people join them. It would be a really bad idea to allow people who are not members of an organization or club to vote for that group's candidates. It would be like people who are not dues paying members of the organization which I lead, the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC ), voting to determine which candidates we will endorse and or financially support. It would be like people who didn't own or rent property in a development, being allowed to vote for the home owners association's rules or which contractors will be hired to mow the lawns and do the painting. Who would want to be dues paying members of any of these organizations and have outsiders INFLUENCE the organization's laws, rules or decisions?
In some states where these cross-over elections are allowed, redistricting committees often put two candidates of the same party in the same district. Then the true conservative candidate is usually in trouble, with his opponents within the party, and the independents and members of the opposition party, ganging up to eliminate the conservative.
During the 2008 elections, Rush Limbaugh tried to play the Democrats against one another late in the election cycle by urging Republicans and independents to vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Obama. Going into the later part of the primary season, Obama had a large lead over Hillary, but didn't quite have the nomination sewed up.
Rush really had no use for Hillary over Obama, but he was hoping they would each have about the same number of delegates going in to the Democrat National Convention with a small number of delegates committed to one of the other candidates or undecided. It almost worked as the cross over voters, mostly Republicans, gave Hillary most of the final delegates, but just not quite enough for a floor fight at the convention. Limbaugh's hope was that a bloody floor fight would so divide the Democrat Party, that they would not prevail in the general election, not only for president, but more importantly in house and senate seats.
Oklahoma's election system works fairly well, with very little chance for cheating. When one looks at the two polar opposites for style of government, there are really only two different types of government with a lot of variations in between. You either have a government that protects a person's private property and respects that person's moral liberty, or a government that consumes a person's private property and abuses their moral liberty.
The Democrat Party clearly stands for the abuse of moral liberty and the consumption of a person's private property. The Republican party TENDS to stand more for protection of private property and respect for a person's liberty. The battle is currently on within the Republican Party for a more conservative flavor, but we have a long way to go to get to the ideal. A third party or independents are, for the most part, simply in-between variations of these two polar opposites.
I honestly don't know what an independent stands for? It could be anything, left or right, who knows? As such, until they decide what they stand for, I don't want them making decisions about the rules or candidates for the Republican Party. One can only hope they will make the right choices in the general elections, but it is often like a crap shoot.
In the 2008 elections, the independents voted in strong numbers for Obama. In 2010, that trend reversed as they voted against the Democrats and the Obama policies. Obama and the Democrats didn't change their spots, so what made the difference? The fickle mood swings of the independents was what changed.
I believe some independents have an air of superiority, wanting to perceive themselves as above political party members. I would never discourage a person from being an independent thinker, but that only works if they have a consistent and workable philosophy of government. I call it a Christian World View, where a person knows God's Word and how it relates to public policy. Without independents knowing who they are, and what they stand for, I don't want them anywhere near a Republican Party primary.
Latest Commentary
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024
Wednesday 31st of January 2024