Comments on: Senate votes to open Kentucky primaries to independent voters

By: Hardware Home Improvement

Hardware Home Improvement — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:39:35 +0000

You’re a very skilled blogger….

I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post. Also, I’ve shared your website in my social networks!…

By: paz.amour

paz.amour — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:37:55 +0000

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/02/03/mattingly.independent.vote.cnn

A link to CNN’s coverage of the Senate vote. This aired last night on Campbell Brown’s show.

By: Buck Feshear

Buck Feshear — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:19:36 +0000

Primaries exist to allow members of political parties to nominate their candidates for the general election. No person not a member of a specific political party should be allowed to vote in a party primary. Next thing you know we will have open primaries where Democrats can vote in the Republican primary and vice versa. Let the “Independent Party” hold its own primary and select its own candidates.

By: Fedup2here

Fedup2here — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:09:37 +0000

Do the politicians currently in office expect me to believe that they are changing by doing something like this? I guess they’ll get the message when they are all in the unemployment line like everyone else. I plan on doing my part on seeing that no incumbent that thinks it is their god given right to pretend to represent me, gets back into office anytime soon, regardless of party.

By: KYJurisDoctor

KYJurisDoctor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:42:47 +0000

I’m applauding my fellow Republicans on this vote.

By: Larry Wallberg

Larry Wallberg — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:21:33 +0000

Todd says: “Political parties exist to allow people who agree on a political philosophy a mechanism to attempt to enact their agenda.”

Todd, where have you been? Do you not watch or read the news? What philosophy or agenda do “the Democrats” or “the Republicans” have other than “Elect Me”?

Since the two “major” parties have a stranglehold on the political process, all citizens should be allowed to vote in the primaries.

The “fear” expressed in the article is just baloney. The motives of the electorate should not be pre-examined; It’s as much a part of our American political tradition to vote AGAINST those candidates we dislike as it is to vote FOR those we like.

By: will

will — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:05:26 +0000

Remember this, you may get elected for the first term, but that doesn’t guarantee you will be elected the next election, UNLESS you are a congressmand in the United States, where 97 of them get re-elected every time they run.

By: will

will — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:01:51 +0000

Tradition kept the south segregated and woman out of the voting booths, not intelligence. Why if you have two friends who are running for different offices in you county, would you want to tell a citizen he can’t vote because he is independent. Anyone unless they’ve been hiding in a hole, realizes this two party system has corrupted American politics. They need to be confronted, not appeased.

By: not_gov_steve

not_gov_steve — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:39:53 +0000

I’m a reg independent, and I would *like* to vote in both primaries. However, tradition should stand. It is for the parties to choose their candidates. If the situation was different, the GOP would be complaining and the dems would be pushing in through. We don’t need more self-serving politicians acting on “our” behalf. Keep it as is.

By: ellsworth_toohey

ellsworth_toohey — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:40:55 +0000

This smells like the Republican machine getting ready to sign a pact with Satan to make sure their boy Trey gets past Rand Paul to me. Don’t be fooled by talk of improving voter turnout. Don’t be corrupt. That will increase voter turnout. Look at the timing of this. It is shameful.