Poll:If there are not opposing other party candidates...

Why not have a local referendum or get the BOCC to change the law.

If there are 2 PCSO candidates for (R) and none otherwise we should change the law that forwards all of the one party candidates to the general election.

I know everyone can vote by changing the party affiliation, but that is just a formality that we should get rid of in my opinion.

So here is another poll, anyone that lives in a CO county can vote.

Personally. I think this system works pretty well as it is.

Why should the democrats get to vote on who the republicans are going to place on the general election ballot or the republicans get to vote on who the democrats place on the genereal election ballot? It is up to each party to select who they would like to represent them in a general election. If a party does not have a canidate that is the parties problem.

I guess I am curious about why people justify a primary at all. Is it really better to have two or three candidates than 6?

I agree that the system works. As someone does get elected and people do have a say in it. I just feel it could work better. Someone could still get elected, but more people could have a direct say. Let's not forget that we are voting on candidates for two reasons. (1) we have justified that it would be too complex to vote on issues and thus we group 1000 votes in one, by changing from a Democracy to a Republic and (2) the founding fathers and everyone else in power know that on average the people are very ignorant and collectively can do some pretty stupid things if allowed to vote on all issues (the state is still trying to reduce this right currently and slavery would still be legal).

Right now in order for a (D) or (I) or otherwise to vote for sheriff, they had to contact the clerk by about a week ago and state that they now affiliate themselves with a party they actually do not, but then they get more rights, so telling a non-truth to get more rights and say in your government sounds like a system that could be improved. Why should one have to make a open political declaration to their own government, especially a politically elected official (the clerk). Even she does not take this declaration as a party affiliation, more as a statement that says, I want more voting rights.

Our road systems work in the US too, but 44,000 people a year die on them. Could be better.

I guess part of why I ask is that lack of competition has almost always hurts the consumer and clearly does in this case too.

Now if you are a (R) and just like that this keeps people that oppose you from voting because there are many out there that still believe it is wrong to lie, especially to their govt....that is just strategy, not a system working....more like working for you.

I am not a (D) btw.

and Ronbo, that is why I qualified my question. Once there are no opposing candidates from another party, those individuals, being the only choice, no longer are representative of those in that original party, they are the only choices and will represent everyone. Plus like it has been stated, all you have to do is legally lie, as I have been advised to do, and you can have a say. All it takes to join your parties is a statement, no qualifications, no moral convictions. By the way, many localities and states give anyone the right to vote in any party's primary without paperwork or declarations. This is actually much like our system, that folks seem to like, but in stead of calling the clerk, they just take the fact that you filled out the ballot for that party as a temporary declaration.

Also Ronbo, they do not represent you. If they did, once you, say as a (R) register and vote in the primary, your vote in the main election would be automatic. They conceptually represent your right to reduce the options in the main election via the primary. Until elected, the candidates only really represent themselves, and many would argue the same once elected.

Anyone can vote in almost any election (just not two primaries or two localities at once). I am just saying give them better access, they already have it, they just have to jump through some hoops and hurdles. Hoops and Hurdles = bad govt. in my opinion. Easy access to people and information = good govt. in my opinion.

No political agenda here, just want a more representative govt. and for more of you fools to vote (though my bet is most that take the initiative to post also vote, which is not foolish).

I never said they represent me. I said the party is voting to select who will represent the party. If you do not like who the party selects to represent the party, in the general election you can vote for another party.

Personally I am not commited to any party. But I do register for a party but have changed my party many times over the years. For example, if I am registered as a democrate and they have a sitting president in the white house that is on his first term, I would change to the republian party so that I could vote in their primary. I did this when Clinton was running for his second term and also when Bush was running for his second term. In the general elections I have probably voted for more republicans but I have voted for some democrates in a few elections.

posteryoyo wrote: Why not have a local referendum or get the BOCC to change the law.

If there are 2 PCSO candidates for (R) and none otherwise we should change the law that forwards all of the one party candidates to the general election.

I know everyone can vote by changing the party affiliation, but that is just a formality that we should get rid of in my opinion.

So here is another poll, anyone that lives in a CO county can vote.

Interesting concept, but then we should eliminate the primaries entirely from the selection process - for all parties, for all offices - which isn't really a bad idea seeing as I support repeal of the 12th Amendment to return us to the original intent of the Constitution and allow the electors selected for the Electoral College to cast 2 equal votes for President based upon the results of the general election.

If the primary is skipped and the winning contender is decided in the general election each candidate for the same office would have to be running under a different party unless they are running as independents.

Or you would have multiple people from the same party seeking the same office in the general election.

Think about if for a moment. What if the Democrats didn't have the ability to limit your choice of candidates from that party to a single individual for the office being sought. In the last presidential election we could have chosen from any of the candidates who sought the office. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Paul, Romney, Kucinich, Giuliani, Huckabee all on the ballot seeking the office and the citizens (and others signed up by ACORN) free to cast their ballot not for the winner of a primary, but for the person they felt would be the best president of the federal government for the nation. That was the original vision. Sure, Washington was a shoe in for the head job the first couple of times, but we did have a president (Adams) with a Vice-President (Jefferson) of a different ideology because the people of the nation felt that these two were the best of the best instead of having to hold one's nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, which is what our presidential, senatorial and every other elected office has become.

If a party chooses to anoint a single candidate to run, they are certainly welcome to do so, but opening up the field to any who seek the office will have the effect of drawing back the drapes and letting the sunshine into the den of corruption that modern politics has become as a result of the monopoly of power the two parties have created for themselves over the last couple of hundred years.

PrintSmith: "If a party chooses to anoint a single candidate to run, they are certainly welcome to do so, but opening up the field to any who seek the office will have the effect of drawing back the drapes and letting the sunshine into the den of corruption that modern politics has become as a result of the monopoly of power the two parties have created for themselves over the last couple of hundred years."

Way to go! :woo hoo: