You as a taxpayer are not forced to fund the elections. You get to check off whether your dollar goes to the elections.

I never do. I’m not completely against it, but I do not understand why my tax dollar needs to go towards funding it when the federal budget is so out of whack.

My vote on my federal tax return is for my tax dollar to go towards decreasing the deficit before it goes towards elections.

Why not? It’s no worse than voting for a horrible candidate because he/she is the “lesser of two evils” or because he/she plays for the same political team.

Ideally, though, Democrats and Republicans (and Libertarians and Greens and Reformers) would be internally funded, private organizations that used their own funds (and not taxpayer dollars) to hold primaries based on their own rules. I’ve never understood why I’m forced to pay into the political food stamp system so two parties can decide who to pimp in the next election cycle.

Best system? Republicans pay for their own primaries, Democrats pay for theirs… and they privately fund their elections, their primaries, and their $2000 a plate fundraisers.

Although, you don’t have to break the law to be unethical (i.e. Enron). I would argue that you never changed your mind when you voted in the Dem primaries because you knew you weren’t going to vote for them in the General. in any case, I’m not passing judgment so much as questioning the tactic for would-be and current candidates.

btw, I’m pretty sure there are plenty of Dem operatives that vote in GOP primaries for the same reasons you do the opposite so its not like the Democrats are idiots in this matter and GOP is brilliant. (see scoreboard)

Oh, I thought you were arguing to disqualify someone because they violated party rules.

I got beat up repeatedly when I voted in Democrat primaries, and I only did them so the idiotic Democrats would send me all their direct mail during elections. I hate party rules that tell you when and where you can and cannot vote. I think it’s a dumb rule.

And, Amit, yes it’s ethical. I’m an American, and I can vote for whomever I want to and I can change my mind tomorrow without it being an ethics violation.

Well that sure sounds like the RPV is attempting to make the Republican Big Tent a little smaller if that means any independent who voted in a Democratic Party primary can’t run for office as a Republican.

If the Democrats took such a step I guess that would eliminate crossover candidates like Jim Webb from running for office.

Why stop there? If that makes sense then it should also be reasonable that this potential candidate must have voted for the Republican candidates in each and every general election. And no fair taking the Dick Cheney route of not even bothering to vote at all in some elections.

Article I, Section A, Part 3 states: “In addition to the foregoing, to be in accord with the principles of the Republican Party, unless otherwise stipulated by the appropriate Official Committee, a person otherwise qualified hereunder shall not have participated in Virginia in the nomination process of a party other than the Republican Party after March 1, 2004, or in the last five years, whichever is more recent.”

the catch? the plan says this is “[EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 15, 2006]” and the 2006 Democratic Senate primary was held on June 13, 2006. I guess one could argue that the effective date is retroactive to March 1, 2004 but I’m no expert in legalese.

LD, you say I’m extreme yet say moderates refuse to sign 100% with one party. on many issues I agree with GOP and some with Dems. perhaps my simplistic ideology of following the law aka The Constitution makes me extreme. I can accept that.

DCH, the downside of a convention is that the party is unable to get a good handle of likely voters for their party since conventions tend to attract the hard core supporters. perhaps when Brownlee voted in Dem primary it was before he thought he would be a candidate. does that change your mind?

I don’t care if libertarians or independents vote in whatever primary they like… unless, of course, the Party wants only its own affiliates to pick its candidates. In which case they can hold a convention, at least in Virginia.

But its an entirely different thing when a CANDIDATE in my party crosses over to vote in the nomination process of another party. That is one calculated risk and it just might backfire on Mr. Brownlee.

A moderate encompasses a large swath of the American electorate.

A moderate refuses to sign on 100% with any party and is willing to vote for the best candidate from any party.

I will observe that I do not think you are worthy of being described as a moderate because you are a Libertarian extremist from my observations.