Why Bother Holding the Primaries?

Clear confirmation of my arguments in my last two posts...

RNC Rules Committee Member:

     "Political parties choose their nominees, not the general public."
Anchorwoman:

     "Then why bother holding the primaries?"
RNC Rules Committee Member:

     "That's a very good question."

RNC Committee Admits Votes are Meaningless - 90 seconds long

What the Political Parties Think of You

Political Parties, Part II

(part i here)

At first glance, this issue reveals corruption to the core. There is no justice in the GOP taking the vote completely away from the American people as to who should represent the party in the presidential elections. But wait, we’re forgetting something...the GOP is a private organization. They are not officially a government organization (even though we all know they receive boatloads upon boatloads of money through the public trough, both directly and indirectly).

If I were to start the Spurious Political Party tomorrow, I could make whatever rules I want, yes? I could decide that upon the completion of the SPP primaries, the party nomination is now entirely my choice, votes be damned. Thanks for your votes, but I’ll decide who represents the SPP! There is nothing inherently immoral in that. The only problem is that anyone who voted in those primaries would realize that their vote was totally meaningless, and would move on to another party.

Aha! So, the trick, as a party leader, is to give the people just enough of a say that they will continue to participate in the primaries and continue to donate time and money to keep us in power. The only thing left is to convince everyone that we are the only option if they don’t want to go with that other party. I’m OK with being the lesser of two evils if that keeps enough people on my side to stay in power!

Really, American people? This is the system in which you continue to voluntarily participate?

Colorado GOP Primary - No Voting Allowed

Political Parties, Part I
(part ii here) 

Did you know that in spite of the fact that there are votes held to determine which person will represent the Republican and Democrat parties in the presidential election, Colorado decided to take that decision directly out of the hands of voters?!

To win the Republican nomination, someone must obtain 1,237 delegates, which is just over half (there are 2,472 available, so this is half plus 2, because the total is an even number). Therefore, if one candidate obtains 1,236, another 800, and another 436, any of these candidates can be chosen by the GOP to represent them in the election.

What this means: the primary voting potentially has almost nothing to do with the candidate the GOP chooses to represent them in the presidential election. So, uh, democracy? Not so much.

Here’s what happened in Colorado… The GOP in Colorado decided to skip the whole primary voting process and have the party to choose amongst themselves who would receive the delegates. This year, Trump, like him or not, is threatening the GOP in a big way, so every one of the 34 delegates went to the candidate who is not a threat to the party: Ted Cruz.

The moral of the story…

The two major political parties in this country have one and only interest: their own. They care nothing for the interests of the voting public, except inasmuch as the voting public helps them accomplish their goal: staying in power. For this very reason, many Republican leaders would rather have Hillary Clinton become president than Trump!!!

Buy Local! Unless You Support the FDA

I hear the cry, "buy local!" all the time. I sympathize with that cry. Our family shops at Aldi because of the low prices - we'd love to buy local (especially raw milk!) if it fit into our budget. Those who would like to see people buy local must seek the one thing that would lead directly to its implementation... abolish the Food and Drug Administration.

What if there were no FDA? How would that affect your food shopping?

You would either research the food you buy, or look for an agency you trust who does the research for you, or both. It is not easy to research a company located hundreds of miles away, not to mention a different continent entirely. People are willing to buy products from distant companies they have never investigated, directly or indirectly, because they trust the product approved by the FDA. Therefore, a lack of any sort of FDA would lead directly to more local food shopping.

Because FDA approval is required, big and small businesses have to be approved. For a large business, these costs are no big deal, but for a small business, they can mean the difference between staying afloat or going under. FDA approval (among hundreds of other regulations) is superfluous when it comes to local businesses you can (and probably do) research yourself, simply leading to much higher costs, and therefore, fewer local businesses.

Now, if those businesses never exist, who is subsidized by their lack of existence and therefore less competition? Larger businesses. Ever wonder who lobbies for regulations? Larger businesses. So, who enjoys the existence of and lobbies for the continuation of the FDA? Larger businesses.

Getting rid of these regulations would lead to lower prices on local food. Higher prices is the primary reason more people haven't jumped on the "buy local" bandwagon. There are countless other reasons to abolish the FDA, but if you would like people to buy local, you MUST be counted among the opponents of the existence of the FDA.