> Does anyone know why the primaries in the US are the weird way they are?
>
> Here in Oregon, primaries are still roughly a month away. For folks here and in states with similar predicaments, this situation makes our votes worthless. If one is going to vote for either of the major parties, one has no choice: there's only one candidate left in each.
>
> I seem to recall from civics class that the Supreme Court hasn't liked it in the past when people's votes are devalued. Isn't this the same effect, but caused by time displacement rather than poorly drawn boundaries?
>
> Also, one doesn't have to be a member of a party to vote in that party's primary. How does this make sense? It seems more likely to me that line-crossers will be trying to sink the enemy rather than voting their consciences.

I never understood this argument. Why would a 'line-crosser' suddenly stop voting their conscience just because they're voting for someone outside their party? It seems to me that all closed primaries do is reinforce blind partisanship. I live in a state whose primary was timed so that it did 'matter' (At least this year), but I wasn't able to vote in the party where my vote could have made a difference, so I stayed home. In fact, the only reason I'm not an independant is so I can vote in a primary, and I think it's silly to make me affiliate with a party just to participate in elections.

>
> gab"Feel free to answer the questions, respond to the opinions, and correct or elaborate on the facts."by
>
> Hmm... this post is oddly written. That's what I get for staying up late.

Bal "Can you be a line-crossing independant?" anthalus