The political parties right to free association has been established by the courts.

Free association gives political parties latitude in conducting their affairs.

For example,last year in the Florida presidential primary debate free association was the foundation of the DNC's argument that the DNC supersedes the state in conducting the process for nomination.The court ruled in favor of the DNC.

Additionally,the Tennessee election code recognizes the political parties right of free association.Among other provisions.

The Tennessee Election code

1.Grants to the political parties the ability to challenge voters party bona fides @ the polls.

Simply put a voter chooses to vote in the Democratic primary @ 10-N.

I could challenge that voter's Democratic Party bona fides & if the officer in charge upholds my challenge the voter would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.

2.Grants to the county parties the ability to choose a primary or a convention to determine their nominees.

As we have witnessed the right of the voter has run smack dab into the right of political parties to free association.

The voters elected Kurita to be the Democratic nominee from the 22nd Tennessee Senate district & Williams as the Republican State Representive from the 4th Tennessee House district.

However,the Executive Committees of both parties have evoked their right of free association to overturn the will of the voters.

Just because you can doesnt mean you should.

I firmly believe the Democratic & Republican Parties Executive Committees cut their nose off to spite their face stripping Kurita of the Democratic 22nd district Senate nomination & resending Williams's Republican bona fides.

In conclusion,as long as the political parties right to free association is upheld by the courts the ability of the parties to conduct their affairs as they see fit will remain & will supersede anything to the contrary.

See, this is what I don't get. I would think that people that know better would take an interest in making some genuine reform. Instead, it's just "shrug," "oh well, even if there is an issue, try explaining it to people - it's just easier not to make reforms and to put up with the odd disenfranchisement of an entire district." That attitude presupposes that people are ignorant, and that enlightening them is not worth the effort.

I see and accept your point...to a point.

How much of the stuff discussed and written on blogs, and even online newspapers like The New York Times and the Washington Post is insider gossip and a variation of trivial pursuit?

Some of it isn't, but I think a good deal of it is, and even enlightened people like ourselves (ego time, tab), have to pick and choose what we're going to inform ourselves about, don't we?

I know this may be an invitation to death by flame, but I have a tendency to believe that the 2 (or even 3) party system is antiquated. After all, are there only 2 or 3 views on any given issue? Don't pigeonhole me, I'm a free thinker.

I am still a fan of Instant Run Off Voting.

What if we didn't register ourselves for a particular party? And what if we didn't vote for a republican, democrat, or independent? But, we actually voted for the best qualified person! No matter what party they affiliate with. That is what I wish could happen.

In three states, Alaska, Louisiana, and Washington, the blanket primary is in operation. This does not require any indication of party affiliation and voters are free to move back and forth across a blanket-sized ballot that includes all candidates of all parties. This makes it possible for voters to participate in, for example, the Republican primary contest for a seat in the US Senate and the Democratic primary to select a candidate for mayor.

A blanket primary would be a great thing for Tennessee!

Andy,

While I can see your point, and technically for the parties, this might make some sense, I still feel that in this day and time when there are initiatives to encourage more people to vote, the idea of restricting any voter, in any way, is going to seem like a road block for the average or average-potential new voter.

I would argue most voters, probably even a lot of primary voters, wouldn't know Kurita from Merita, and they just want to vote for the best person, in their opinion, for the job.

The country, more than ever, is moving away from party identities. These types of rules and regulations would seem to run counter to that trend.

I wouldn't mind seeing truly open primaries, with one ballot where you could mix and match depending on the office (one candidate from one party per office).

I like this idea a lot. I often have to choose whether to vote for the less evil Republican and then can't vote for the best Democrat in an election.

The people come first. Not the parties. People should be allowed to vote for anybody.

The Republican Party is taking on all the characteristics of the nomenklatura. The only difference is that people can vote their conscience in this country without fear, for the most part.

What the TNGOP is hoping to do is drive away the Independents, and moderate Republicans in frustration, so the core can choose the primary winners, and ultimately, the general election winners.

It's a bad idea, created and promoted for all the wrong reasons.

One proposal I saw (don't think it's in this law) was that you could automatically change your party affiliation by voting in a party primary.

Anyway, I like open registration and open primaries. Occasionally we have races where the opposition party doesn't run a candidate in the primary, so the option to vote in the other primary seems reasonable because it is sometimes (frequently) the election.

Plus, what about the Greens and Libertarians and whatnots. They wouldn't be able to vote in primaries at all. On the other hand, I guess they should pick a side if they want to vote in primaries, or run their own primaries (which I guess is pretty much impossible the way state law is setup?).

I wouldn't mind seeing truly open primaries, with one ballot where you could mix and match depending on the office (one candidate from one party per office). Or just do away with state and local primaries altogether and save the taxpayers a bunch of money, because as AA notes they are pretty much window dressing for party back room business anyway.

Being a Marylander (just a former Knoxvillian), I suppose that, as my father would say, "I ain't got no dog in this fight."

However, I think there's one key advantage to party registration: it makes "mischief" like Rush Limbaugh's attempts to diddle with the Democratic primaries last year more difficult in that you actually have to switch your party registration to mess up another party's voting.

Voting is like driving. If you want to go backwards, select R. If you want to go forward, select D.

(link...)

In other states where I have been a real card carrying democrat I had the option to switch party affiliation at the polls on election day.

The bill as written says a person would have to go through the an entire re-registration at least 30 days in advance of the primary election to change party affiliation.

Without this option for change at the polling site I hate this bill.

I was surprised any state does that. Much less 25 of them.

About as "democratic" as using supposed "party affiliation" as a rationale to overturn a legitimate election.

I have a better idea: If we don't register by party, let's not bother having primaries and just let the parties hand-pick our representatives. The TNGOP and TNDP seem hell-bent on having the final say over who gets to govern in this state, rather than the voters.

____________________________

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!

Background:

(link...)