Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

LiberalFighter

(50,888 posts)

3. If they want to do it this way. Fine!

Reply to okaawhatever (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:49 PM

Feb 2013

But I don't think party activists at the local level would care for this to happen. It would likely be a negative to both political parties not to have primaries.

It would be inappropriate for the process to involve campaigning elected officials for their support and vote on the record. And the vote should be on the record.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Tennessee State Senator proposes partial end to direct elections of US Senators, [View all] okaawhatever Feb 2013 OP

Uh.... yeah! Turbineguy Feb 2013 #1

Niceley is an idiot Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2

If they want to do it this way. Fine! LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #3

this is how pretty much every parlimentary democracy works dsc Feb 2013 #4

It is not most likely... Agschmid Feb 2013 #10

In this instance, I'm going to say that the GOP is trying to keep the Tea Party out. Fawke Em Feb 2013 #5

Well, in Tennessee they probaly want to keep the Tea Partiers in and the moderates out. SharonAnn Feb 2013 #6

If they want to end it on a state level go for it davidpdx Feb 2013 #7

Not all states have primaries now. onenote Feb 2013 #8

No, but once people have that right, it is really about limiting the franchise, which appears CTyankee Feb 2013 #9

Misleading. This in only for the Tennessee Republican Party and would only effect the primary. madinmaryland Feb 2013 #11