Hi everyone,

As an aside to the current topic, many states' laws would have to be
rewritten to allow a third party. I consider myself to be a "little
c" conservative, but I am registered as a Republican in Tennessee as
Tennessee will allow one to vote in the major primaries only if you are
a registered Democrat or Republican. Anything else, you're not allowed
to vote.

-- Sean


... Death is life's way of saying "you're fired."
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

As an aside to the current topic, many states' laws would have to be rewritten to allow a third party. I consider myself to be a "little
c" conservative, but I am registered as a Republican in Tennessee as Tennessee will allow one to vote in the major primaries only if you are
a registered Democrat or Republican. Anything else, you're not allowed
to vote.

Same here. The other parties, if they field anyone at all, usually have someone put on the general ballot without holding a primary.

There are states that allow independents to vote in one or the other, but
not both, primaries. IIRC, there are also some states that allow *anyone*
to vote in one or the other, but not both primaries, regardless of how they
are registered.

I really question that practice, especially the latter. OT1H, it gives independents more of a voice. OTOH, especially the latter practice can
allow persons to manipulate who gets nominated by one party -- trying to
make sure they nominate a weak candidate that the other party can walk all
over in November.

There are some MAGA Republicans serving in Congress right now who owe their initial success on backing from Democrats who thought they were "too crazy"
to win the general election, only to have them win (and many, to keep
winning) the seats in question.


* SLMR 2.1a * He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Mike Powell wrote to DIGIMAUS <=-

There are some MAGA Republicans serving in Congress right now who owe their initial success on backing from Democrats who thought they were
"too crazy" to win the general election, only to have them win (and
many, to keep winning) the seats in question.

In the case of AOC and Mamdani: I am concerned about the people who'd
vote these communist idiots in.

-- digi

... You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

There are some MAGA Republicans serving in Congress right now who owe their initial success on backing from Democrats who thought they were "too crazy" to win the general election, only to have them win (and many, to keep winning) the seats in question.

In the case of AOC and Mamdani: I am concerned about the people who'd
vote these communist idiots in.

Yeah, I think I mentioned it in another post, but there seem to be some
folks on social media (who identify as "Democrats") who believe the future
of the party is to abandon the center all together and head for the left
pole.

Those types have always existed... I knew several in college... but after
the 2024 election they seem to be more vocal. There is even a Congressional candidate in Illinois that has stated that she sees no point in trying to
court the center.

So I agree that your concern is valid.


* SLMR 2.1a * What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

As an aside to the current topic, many states' laws would have to be

>rewritten to allow a third party. I consider myself to be a "little
>c" conservative, but I am registered as a Republican in Tennessee as
>Tennessee will allow one to vote in the major primaries only if you are
>a registered Democrat or Republican. Anything else, you're not allowed
>to vote.

If you are a registered Republican can you vote Democrat if you
decide it's a good idea some election?

I suppose if ballots are secret they'd never know, just be annoyed
if they don't get as many votes as they expected..

---
* SLMR Rob * Hard work pays off in the end... Laziness pays off Now
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

There are states that allow independents to vote in one or the other, but

>not both, primaries. IIRC, there are also some states that allow *anyone*
>to vote in one or the other, but not both primaries, regardless of how they
>are registered.

I really question that practice, especially the latter. OT1H, it gives

>independents more of a voice. OTOH, especially the latter practice can
>allow persons to manipulate who gets nominated by one party -- trying to
>make sure they nominate a weak candidate that the other party can walk all
>over in November.

I wonder if it's true.. I've heard you can write in any name you
want on a ballot and, as long as it's clear, it's a legal vote
for that person.

I recall hearing years back on one election where a lot of people
didn't like the candidate running for either party there and, as
a result, Mickey Mouse got several thousand votes.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Jesus paid for our sins... Lets get our money's worth
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

If you are a registered Republican can you vote Democrat if you
decide it's a good idea some election?

You can vote for *any* candidate in the *general* election, but not the
primary in most places.

Primary = nominating the candidate that will *represent your party* in the general election.

General = voting for who you want to hold the office.

Most states won't allow you to cross party lines during the primary
elections. When you go in, they only give you the ballot for the party you
are registerd in, and you vote to nominate the candidates you'd like to see on the general ballot.

They cannot stop you from voting for whoever you want on the *general* ballot... everyone in your district gets the same ballot, and all candiates
are listed -- Republican, Democrat, and otherwise.

In both cases, you can always write someone in but their chances of winning
go down the larger the race is... local elections can be won, state and national not nearly as likely.

I suppose if ballots are secret they'd never know, just be annoyed
if they don't get as many votes as they expected..

Correct. In the general they don't/shouldn't know. For the primary, they don't know who you choose but they do know which ballot -- Republican or Democrat -- they gave you, and you are restricted to using it.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * IBM = Institute of Black Magic
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Rob Mccart wrote to DIGIMAUS <=-

If you are a registered Republican can you vote Democrat if you
decide it's a good idea some election?

Yes, that is true in any election. It's only when you register to vote,
you must register either as Republican or Democrat. You can vote for
any candidate on the ballot and even write in a candidate that isn't on
a ballot in most elections.

I suppose if ballots are secret they'd never know, just be annoyed
if they don't get as many votes as they expected..

Sometimes the turnout can be weird...

-- digi <8D~

... I don't make mistakes. I date them.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL <=-

I wonder if it's true.. I've heard you can write in any name you
want on a ballot and, as long as it's clear, it's a legal vote
for that person.

It's true.

I recall hearing years back on one election where a lot of people
didn't like the candidate running for either party there and, as
a result, Mickey Mouse got several thousand votes.. B)

That's happened a lot, and in my opinion, rightly so!

-- digi <8D~

... I'm going to make something Canadian out of maple syrup and beavers.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

If you are a registered Republican can you vote Democrat if you

>> decide it's a good idea some election?

You can vote for *any* candidate in the *general* election, but not the

>primary in most places.

Primary = nominating the candidate that will *represent your party* in the

>general election.

Yes, I should have remembered how you do that there.
In Canada it is our elected local Members of Parliament who decide
who will be the candidate to run for the party in the next election.
'Ordinary' people aren't in on that..

---
* SLMR Rob * This would be really funny if it wasn't happening to me
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Yes, I should have remembered how you do that there.
In Canada it is our elected local Members of Parliament who decide
who will be the candidate to run for the party in the next election. 'Ordinary' people aren't in on that..

Yeah, it isn't perfect, but I would rather at least feel like I have a say
in who is running vs. the party just picking someone.


* SLMR 2.1a * If it ain't water-cooled... it's a terminal!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Hello Rob Mccart!

** On Friday 01.08.25 - 07:06, you wrote to MIKE POWELL:

In Canada it is our elected local Members of Parliament who decide
who will be the candidate to run for the party in the next election. 'Ordinary' people aren't in on that..

But.. if you are a card-carrying party member, you get to vote
for the specific leader for the party when they have those
leadership contests, no?

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: (} Pointy McPointface (618:250/1.9)

In Canada it is our elected local Members of Parliament who decide

>> who will be the candidate to run for the party in the next election.
>> 'Ordinary' people aren't in on that..

Yeah, it isn't perfect, but I would rather at least feel like I have a say

>in who is running vs. the party just picking someone.

I suppose it comes down to if you tend to vote for the party or the person.
In theory, if you vote Party, it shouldn't matter as much who they put
up for election unless they mess up and choose someone so unpopular that
people who normally vote for that Party refuse to vote, or even vote
for another Party..

It's hard to say, and I do know the things the Party leader is most
interested in doing will come into things later, so there is some
control over policy by choosing the right Party leader.

Take Trump for instance... B)

---
* SLMR Rob * I took an IQ test and the results were negative
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

In Canada it is our elected local Members of Parliament who decide
who will be the candidate to run for the party in the next election. 'Ordinary' people aren't in on that..

But.. if you are a card-carrying party member, you get to vote

>for the specific leader for the party when they have those
>leadership contests, no?

Yes, sorry about that. I either read something wrong or found wrong
information when I first checked online for the voting rules..

It turns out there are card carrying members for each party (400,000
of them for the Liberals) who do get to vote for who they want for the
party leader.. They just have to be registered at least 41 days before
that vote occurs so you have to plan ahead..

I just did a another general search online and again I found sites
that say all registered members (of age since you can join at 14)
can vote for the party leader and others that said we elect our
local MP's and only they can be involved in that vote..

Seems you can't trust everything you read online..
Imagine that!.. B)

It can get confusing though, Doug Ford in the 2018 Premier election
had over 2000 fewer votes than Christine Elliot, but he had more
'points', which are based on the population in individual ridings.
They mentioned that virtually never does the elected leader actually
have a majority of the total individual votes. I knew that happens
at times but I didn't know it's almost always the case..

The same thing happens in the actual election votes.
i.e.. In the election where Trump beat out Hillary Clinton, she had
more votes than Trump did but he won in more electoral districts.

---
* SLMR Rob * I love animals... they're delicious
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Yeah, it isn't perfect, but I would rather at least feel like I have a say

>in who is running vs. the party just picking someone.

I suppose it comes down to if you tend to vote for the party or the person. In theory, if you vote Party, it shouldn't matter as much who they put
up for election unless they mess up and choose someone so unpopular that people who normally vote for that Party refuse to vote, or even vote
for another Party..

It's hard to say, and I do know the things the Party leader is most interested in doing will come into things later, so there is some
control over policy by choosing the right Party leader.

Take Trump for instance... B)

In 2016, he might not have been chosen. In 2024, he would have been chosen
by the party as his family was mostly in charge of it.

Similar to 2016 with the Democrats. Hillary's family was not in charge of
the DNC pursestrings, but the person who was pretty much gave Hillary
control of the $$$ as a condition to get her to run.

The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced him
wtih someone the party chose. It didn't go well for them.


* SLMR 2.1a * One good turn gets all the blankets.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Mike Powell wrote to ROB MCCART <=-

The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced
him wtih someone the party chose. It didn't go well for them.

Yet that person is wanting to run again in 2028 after her abysmal and embarrassing failure.

Some people don't know when to quit.

-- Sean

... "Lack of money is the root of all evil." - George Bernard Shaw
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced him wtih someone the party chose. It didn't go well for them.

Yet that person is wanting to run again in 2028 after her abysmal and embarrassing failure.

Some people don't know when to quit.

I guess it will depend on if she is who the party decides they want.
I have seem some folks trying to encourage the party to move in a different direction, but I have also seen some that thought she was a good candidate
and want her back. Time will tell.


* SLMR 2.1a * Anything good is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Mike Powell wrote to DIGIMAUS <=-

I guess it will depend on if she is who the party decides they want.
I have seem some folks trying to encourage the party to move in a different direction, but I have also seen some that thought she was a
good candidate and want her back. Time will tell.

I read an article that CNN is saying that AOC is pollking higher tghan
Harris is and that, IMNSHO, is really bad. XD

-- digi <8D~

... Borrow money from pessimists. They don't expect it back.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

Similar to 2016 with the Democrats. Hillary's family was not in charge of

>the DNC pursestrings, but the person who was pretty much gave Hillary
>control of the $$$ as a condition to get her to run.

The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced him

>with someone the party chose. It didn't go well for them.

That one was a bit odd. Hillary was 'famous' after being first lady but
seemed to be unpopular, even among women voters.. plus it's hard to say
if the USA was ready for a female President. Perhaps most would argue
they are but I wonder if that would work out at the voting polls...

She did get lots of votes but I suspect it was more voting for the
Party rather than for the person.

Right or wrong I think Canada might be more likely to elect a woman
for Prime Minister but we'd never really know until one runs seriously.

We did briefly have a woman Prime Minister (Kim Campbell) for a few
months in 1993, but she was only in power because the elected Prime
Minister resigned and she took over until the next election, and then
she lost in one of the worst Party defeats in history...

---
* SLMR Rob * He who laughs last thinks slowest
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

I read an article that CNN is saying that AOC is pollking higher tghan
Harris is and that, IMNSHO, is really bad. XD

The Democrats in the younger generations are moving left.


* SLMR 2.1a * User: The hardest-to-setup PC peripheral you can buy.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Similar to 2016 with the Democrats. Hillary's family was not in charge of

>the DNC pursestrings, but the person who was pretty much gave Hillary
>control of the $$$ as a condition to get her to run.

The Democrats in 2024 had a nominee chosen by the people and replaced him

>with someone the party chose. It didn't go well for them.

That one was a bit odd. Hillary was 'famous' after being first lady but seemed to be unpopular, even among women voters.. plus it's hard to say
if the USA was ready for a female President. Perhaps most would argue
they are but I wonder if that would work out at the voting polls...

She did get lots of votes but I suspect it was more voting for the
Party rather than for the person.

She is "infamous" to many. ;)

There are several reasons she could be unpopular, IMHO, and none of them
are because she is female. Most of them revolve around her being a
non-geniune and dishonest person.

Right or wrong I think Canada might be more likely to elect a woman
for Prime Minister but we'd never really know until one runs seriously.

We did briefly have a woman Prime Minister (Kim Campbell) for a few
months in 1993, but she was only in power because the elected Prime
Minister resigned and she took over until the next election, and then
she lost in one of the worst Party defeats in history...

There is a woman in Canadian politics now... can't remember her name, but
some tried to get her to run this time... that I think would make a great leader. She holds some high position in the federal government.

There are women in this country that I think could also make great
Presidents. They seem smart enough not to run, though. The parties, and
the Democrats in particular, seem to weed out anyone who is sensible
sounding very early in the primary season.


* SLMR 2.1a * Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Previously, I said:

There is a woman in Canadian politics now... can't remember her name, but some tried to get her to run this time... that I think would make a great leader. She holds some high position in the federal government.

Melanie Joly. Knew I would eventually remember it. ;)

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

There are several reasons she could be unpopular, IMHO, and none of them

>are because she is female. Most of them revolve around her being a
>non-geniune and dishonest person.

Yes, My somewhat removed experience watching Hillary in the news
left me less than impressed.

Right or wrong I think Canada might be more likely to elect a woman

>> for Prime Minister but we'd never really know until one runs seriously.

We did briefly have a woman Prime Minister (Kim Campbell) for a few

>> months in 1993, but she was only in power because the elected Prime
>> Minister resigned and she took over until the next election, and then
>> she lost in one of the worst Party defeats in history...

There is a woman in Canadian politics now... can't remember her name, but

>some tried to get her to run this time... that I think would make a great
>leader. She holds some high position in the federal government.

I think you are thinking of Chrystia Freeland. For many years she was
the Deputy Prime Minister (Like Vice President but chosen rather than
elected to the post) but before Trudeau left, she quit the position
because she didn't agree with how Trudeau was dealing with Trump.
I figure she must be fairly good since Trump *Really* hates her.. B)

Lots of mixed opinions here as to whether she should have run for
Prime Minister or not. I thought she was fairly good but my nephew
absolutely hates her, which has nothing to do with her being female.

There are women in this country that I think could also make great

>Presidents. They seem smart enough not to run, though. The parties, and
>the Democrats in particular, seem to weed out anyone who is sensible
>sounding very early in the primary season.

Ha.. that reminds me of a comment in a book by Arthur C. Clarke
who, when referring to the leader of a country, said that anyone
who deliberately aims for the job should be disqualified.. B)

---
* SLMR Rob * Today is a good day for you to jump in a lake!
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

There are women in this country that I think could also make great

>Presidents. They seem smart enough not to run, though. The parties, and
>the Democrats in particular, seem to weed out anyone who is sensible
>sounding very early in the primary season.

Ha.. that reminds me of a comment in a book by Arthur C. Clarke
who, when referring to the leader of a country, said that anyone
who deliberately aims for the job should be disqualified.. B)

Back in the day, I would have questioned that opinion. I pretty much
believe it to be spot on now. :D

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * If all appears to go well, you missed something...
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

There is a woman in Canadian politics now... can't remember her name, but

>> some tried to get her to run this time... that I think would make a great
>> leader. She holds some high position in the federal government.

Melanie Joly. Knew I would eventually remember it. ;)

Oh her!.. I've seen her on TV often doing her various jobs for
the gov't and she seems competent enough. To be honest I never
thought of her as a leader type, not to say she couldn't be..

It was suggested at one point that she could replace Trudeau but a
while back when she was offered the office of Foreign Affairs Minister,
she turned it down flat because she said it would interfere with her
trying to get pregnant so, as I said, maybe not the ultimate leader
type putting the job before all else? Not to say that's bad, just
that it was the choice she made.

She's French, from Quebec, BTW..

---
* SLMR Rob * #@$ffweggfjaljk... Hey! Get that cat off the keyboard!
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

It was suggested at one point that she could replace Trudeau but a
while back when she was offered the office of Foreign Affairs Minister,
she turned it down flat because she said it would interfere with her
trying to get pregnant so, as I said, maybe not the ultimate leader
type putting the job before all else? Not to say that's bad, just
that it was the choice she made.

I had not heard that. I did hear that she shyed away from an opening...
maybe Trudeau's... because she felt like she was better serving the country where she was.

She's French, from Quebec, BTW..

Oh, the horror!!! Well, that strikes her off my list. :D

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * It ain't over, but the fat lady is clearing her throat.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Ha.. that reminds me of a comment in a book by Arthur C. Clarke

>> who, when referring to the leader of a country, said that anyone
>> who deliberately aims for the job should be disqualified.. B)

Back in the day, I would have questioned that opinion. I pretty much

>believe it to be spot on now. :D

Yes.. It seems to me in that book it was suggested that they just
pick a random person every 4 years and that you would have a
better chance of getting an honest, caring leader than choosing
from people who Want the job.. B)

"If nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve.."
William Tecumseh Sherman (c1884) B)

---
* SLMR Rob * I take chocolate from strangers. Are you strange?
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

It was suggested at one point that she could replace Trudeau but a

>> while back when she was offered the office of Foreign Affairs Minister,
>> she turned it down flat because she said it would interfere with her
>> trying to get pregnant so, as I said, maybe not the ultimate leader
>> type putting the job before all else? Not to say that's bad, just
>> that it was the choice she made.

I had not heard that. I did hear that she shyed away from an opening...

>maybe Trudeau's... because she felt like she was better serving the country
>where she was.

She's French, from Quebec, BTW..

Oh, the horror!!! Well, that strikes her off my list. :D

Even worse, Melanie Joly is also a Lawyer... B)

Often some of the French people rub me the wrong way but she
always seemed a nice person. Her current job is mostly to do with
Quebec though. She used to be Minister of Economic Developement
and Minister of Tourism, which would be Canada wide, but she is
Currently Minister of Official Languages and Economic Developement
in Quebec as well as for all of Canada she is the Registrar General
and the Minister of Industry. A very busy person it sounds like..

In the last election she got more than triple the votes of any
other candidates in her region.

I'm allowed to say some of that stuff above since my Paternal
Grandmother was French, as are a bunch of other relatives.. B)

My brother's wife is French too..

---
* SLMR Rob * Discoveries are made by not following directions
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)