Should democratic republican parties should be required by law to pay for their own primaries since they say they are private clubs?



Requiring membership into a party for full voting rights is unconstitutional. Also trump supporters, look at what your party says about your vote LOL LOL LOL!!! This would happen to Clinton too if she wasn't the one that the establishment, the corporate interests and lobbyists wanted as the nominee.
American voters spend hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the GOP and Democrat primaries but don't have a SAY in who the nominee is. ALSO IF YOU CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT AMERICA AND WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND SENATE, you will watch BOTH of these informative videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1zRfXkOmPI


0|0
0|2

What Girls Said 0

No girls shared opinions.

What Guys Said 2

  • No, I think the best system would be to have a government pot from which the largest 5 parties or so get an equal, limited share. Private donations would be outlawed. So for example every party would simply get 20 millions and that's what they have to get through with. The advantage of this system would be that the small amount of money would force all politicians and parties to spend their money very wisely and creatively. Lack of money would be replaced by high-quality campaigning. At the moment, parties can waste millions upon millions of dollars for all kinds of ridiculous bullshit. If you only have a bit of money and you EXACTLY the same amount of money as other parties, you have to think very smartly about how you're gonna stick out and present yourself to the voter.

    A similar version of this system would be that instead of a government pot, political parties would also have to collect private donations like in the current system but the government would set an upper limit. For example "you can't spend more than 20 millions on your campaign". If parties go over that limit and collect more money than they are allowed to collect, they would have to pay a fine.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Why pay when you don't have a say? Why pay if the party can turn around and select the nominee despite what the voting public wants?

    • I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you. All I'm suggesting is an upper limit for party donations (the money a political party is allowed to collect). Obviously, parties still have to stick to democratic principles in this system. Whoever gets the most votes, wins. The only difference is that parties wouldn't be able to buy their vote/voters. Money should be used to pay the most important, basic things of a campaign, not to play political advertisement on all TV and radio stations 24/7. All parties should play under the same rules because this should ensure that quality goes over quantity.

  • Government money should not be used to promote party affiliation in any way, including primaries, selection and allocation of legislative leadership and committee assignments based on party affiliation, single party balloting, or even allowing party designation on a ballot.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Neither should tax payer money... After all, voters have NO SAY in who the nominee is since the 2 parties say that they are private clubs

    • You know the government's money IS the tax payer's money, right?

    • Right. I misread

Loading...