The Democratic View Of Democracy

10 Responses to The Democratic View Of Democracy

1. geologyjim says:

   October 19, 2014 at 1:41 am

   DemoKratz are very good at discouraging primary opponents who might offer slightly different flavors of Socialism. It supports the notion of a “United Front”

   I have no doubt the slightly variable “Democrat Socialists” are told to “wait their turn” when the Party determines that they will be the “Candidate without Opposition” on a future date.

   That way, the Denver Post/Fort Collins Colorodoan never has to run an article about “contests/conflicts within the DemoKrat Party” – nothing to see here folks – – move along.

   Reply
   • annieoakley says:

     October 19, 2014 at 2:33 am

     And unsustainable sustainable communism continues to thrive unchallenged.

     Reply
   • there is no substitute for victory says:

     October 19, 2014 at 6:23 am

     https://www.google.com/search?q=alabama+democratic+party+mascot+1964&biw=1280&bih=603&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WFdDVPX4F4f4yASNoIGgDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=MgUeq-uYpFlibM%253A%3BVTEfwI5nmmpf_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi178.photobucket.com%252Falbums%252Fw257%252Fmooncatsphotos%252FScreenshot2011-03-24at23633PM.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.oafe.net%252Fyo%252Fhml5_bp.php%3B351%3B351
     Here is another example of a Democrat Party ballot mascot that appeared on the general election Ballot in the 1960s

     Reply
2. Ivan says:

   October 19, 2014 at 6:20 am

   Democrat voters can READ?
   Like — WOW !

   Reply
3. ntesdorf says:

   October 19, 2014 at 10:54 am

   Wow! With that system, you can really save on election costs. There is no need to have any elections at all, just like in China and the old Soviet Union.

   Reply
4. annieoakley says:

   October 19, 2014 at 3:07 pm

   Here is what is at stake. http://www.independentsentinel.com/executive-order-13575-rural-lands-takeover/

   Reply
5. Richard T. Fowler says:

   October 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm

   A lot of people don’t know that Soviets had elections at the local level, but with only one candidate for each office, because the Party had preselected that candidate before the voters got to decide. The Soviet constitution embodied the principle that the Party was the conductor and the government was the orchestra. So the Party had exclusive power to put candidates on the ballot, and if they only wanted one per office (which they invariably did), then that’s what the government printed on the ballot. If a government official tried to act differently from the Party’s orders, he would immediately be removed from the Party, which would trigger his termination from government pursuant to the Soviet constitution which stipulated that all government officials had to be Party members.

   As a result of all this, the “real” election for any local office was always the one that was held in secret by party leaders, to decide who would go on the ballot. (This was the equivalent of holding what we would call a party primary in one of these Democratic strongholds where winning the primary = winning the election.)

   The above-described practice of the Party pre-selecting only one candidate, and enforcing its will through expelling anyone who tries to run without permission, appears to be exactly what is going on in Larimer County, Col.

   The other interesting thing is that, while it seems ridiculous to us that people would be required to show up and vote when there is no choice available, for the Soviets there was the option of voting “yes” or “no” on each candidate, and while I know of no case where “no” ever succeeded, it was at least theoretically possible for the Party to be forced to choose someone else if their preferred candidate was rejected. (Though he probably would have had to have a psychotic break during election season in order for that to happen.)

   Tony, thanks for posting this. We all need to know about things like this so we can know just how mentally ill our opposition is becoming.

   RTF

   Reply
6. Beale says:

   October 20, 2014 at 6:05 am

   It looks to me as though the party has its hands full finding even one person per office wanting to run as a Democrat. This isn’t so bad.

   Reply
   • Richard T. Fowler says:

     October 20, 2014 at 9:00 am

     Well, for the federal and the statewide elections, that is possible if they have reason to believe that those races are going to be a slog. Especially for the races with a Democratic incumbent running for re-election. The party would discourage their supporters from running on the grounds that switching horses in midstream could cause a disaster. It might not be very true to the principle of small-“d” democracy, but at least they would have a comprehensible reason for it.

     But when I look at the fact that the State Rep and County Commission races have the same “problem”, and that I haven’t read of Colorado being a trouble spot for the Democrats … plus the fact that the current Attorney-General and Secretary of State have chosen not to run for re-election, so there is no incumbent … it looks extremely suspicious to me.

     Also we have a situation where the outgoing mayor of Broomfield, named Quinn, was running against Markey, a former U.S. Rep. and Assistant Secretary in Homeland Security, for the nomination for State Treasurer, but then Quinn pulled out of the race. Again, very suspicious. Quinn could have just stopped campaigning, but stayed on the ballot to preserve the principle of a choice. But he apparently didn’t do so. To me, that reeks of pressure being applied.

     RTF

     Reply
     • Richard T. Fowler says:

       October 20, 2014 at 9:03 am

       Correction. The Attorney-General is term-limited, so he did not ‘choose’ not to run. But my reasoning is still applicable to that.

       RTF

       Reply