What the....

Discussion in 'The Refreshment Lounge' started by owls84, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. owls84

    owls84 Moderator Premium Member

    1,653
    9
    38
  2. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    yes, a huge problem. i wonder on what legal basis he made this decision. i'm guessing none.
     
  3. Wingnut

    Wingnut Premium Member

    1,095
    17
    38
    Sounds like BS to me and a new version of Gerrymandering to influence elections.
     
  4. scottmh59

    scottmh59 Registered User

    693
    5
    0
    hmmmmm:8:
     
  5. Nate Riley

    Nate Riley Premium Member

    376
    8
    18
    Seems to me that his decison had a racial basis and no a legal basis at all.

    Stupid decision on the part of the DOJ.

    I think small town elections would be much better without parties. In my small town as in others in TX (and probably the big towns) things get all screwed up at primary election time, because folks want to vote in the major elections for the candidate they like and have to choose a party at that time. Meanwhile they would like to support a local candidate who is running in the other party. Last year was weird because folks were switching to vote democrat to try to change the outcome with that primary election following the advice of talk radio.

    The short of it is, every voter should be able to vote for any candidate in local (small town election), even in the primary.
     
  6. owls84

    owls84 Moderator Premium Member

    1,653
    9
    38
    My thoughts exactly Brother Nate.
     
  7. HKTidwell

    HKTidwell Premium Member

    493
    10
    0
    I think we would all be better off with no parties at all. No Republicans, no democrats and on election day take the two people with the most votes and allow a run off. You realize how it would change the political scape?
     

Share My Freemasonry