~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[igorfrankensteen]

I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.

But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).

Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.

But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands. Or we need a constitutional amendment to eliminate any legislation or regulations that inhibit participation. The games the Dims played to keep Laurence Lessig off the ballots were pretty reprehensible.

Varying levels of understanding of what is and is not going on, in this collection of posts and counterposts.

OliverK is partly correct, that the Primaries are a private matter for each party, but he's wrong that the Federal government (which is RUN by both parties) should step in and make changes. That would be the OPPOSITE of a democratic process, because it would involve Government officers, telling the individual parties how they can and can't select candidates.

Proudfootz on the other hand, makes a different earnest mistake, assuming that the Parties are, or ever have been, actively TRYING to "represent the preferences of its rank and file members." The way that leadership itself works, or doesn't, in a democratic society, is that those who HOPE to lead, declare what they believe in, and then call upon the rank and file, to empower them via votes. When instead, they try to "represent the preferences of its rank and file members," they will instead become slaves to popularity polls, and make a big mess of things. We don't "do" representative government because we all know completely as individuals, how to deal with everything as a nation. We have representatives, so that we can put people who DO actually know (or who we at least hope do) in charge of running things.

So what the Party's do in Primary procedures, is try to arrange for the maximum chance that THEIR guy will win the actual ELECTION. And that actually means that they often have to IGNORE the rank and file members of the Party, because the majority of the rank and file of ANY party, are only very very rarely identical to the majority of the nation as a whole.

So trying to make PRIMARIES identical to the actual elections, would be a huge mistake.

And then crank, of course, goes back to demanding, essentially, that political parties be outlawed all together, without realizing that that's what he's saying. If people OTHER than those in your political group are allowed to dictate how your group functions, then independence is lost, democracy is lost, advocacy is lost, and so on.

Overall, it seems to have become very popular these days, for individuals to clamor to have their own personal sensibilities made into the law of the land, often exactly BECAUSE they have refused to think them through rationally at all. Sort of a "I feel annoyed, therefore I should get my way" kind of approach to government.

It's a horrible thing that this sort of posturing and thoughtless attitude receives as much praise as it does, and if it continues and increases, we will see even LESS personal liberty, and even LESS creativity in government following.

Back to primaries: they MUST remain what they are, for the most part, again, because their goal is NOT to nominate the person who the majority of the party members, want to have run the country.

[igorfrankensteen]

By the way, my detailing of all that does NOT mean that support each and every thing that each party chooses to do, to solve the challenge of picking a viable candidate. Both parties suffer from corruption. My point is, that who dictates the changes which need to be made in each, MUST NOT be anyone outside the parties themselves.

[Willie71]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

[crank]

I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.

But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).

Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.

But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands. Or we need a constitutional amendment to eliminate any legislation or regulations that inhibit participation. The games the Dims played to keep Laurence Lessig off the ballots were pretty reprehensible.

Varying levels of understanding of what is and is not going on, in this collection of posts and counterposts.
And then crank, of course, goes back to demanding, essentially, that political parties be outlawed all together, without realizing that that's what he's saying. If people OTHER than those in your political group are allowed to dictate how your group functions, then independence is lost, democracy is lost, advocacy is lost, and so on.

Overall, it seems to have become very popular these days, for individuals to clamor to have their own personal sensibilities made into the law of the land, often exactly BECAUSE they have refused to think them through rationally at all. Sort of a "I feel annoyed, therefore I should get my way" kind of approach to government.

It's a horrible thing that this sort of posturing and thoughtless attitude receives as much praise as it does, and if it continues and increases, we will see even LESS personal liberty, and even LESS creativity in government following.

Back to primaries: they MUST remain what they are, for the most part, again, because their goal is NOT to nominate the person who the majority of the party members, want to have run the country.

You really got it right when you said I wouldn't realize that was what I said, because it has no relationship to what I said. The two dominate parties have managed to pass laws at federal and state level that erect massive roadblocks to other parties getting their candidates on the ballots. I think that should be stopped, how is that dictating to either of the two how they should select their nominees?

[crank]

By the way, my detailing of all that does NOT mean that support each and every thing that each party chooses to do, to solve the challenge of picking a viable candidate. Both parties suffer from corruption. My point is, that who dictates the changes which need to be made in each, MUST NOT be anyone outside the parties themselves.

Restrictions can be placed, forcing them to set open rules that don't get altered arbitrarily when it suits their desires to thwart a nomination. Referencing what happened to Lessig was an error, that was just the media if I recall. They first said a million signatures, when he got that, they changed it to include polling at a certain percentage, and then left his name of the polling questions. Some kind of restrictions need to be in place to eliminate such bullshit, like requiring debate participation restrictions that are open and consistent. I don't want laws meddling with the process other than these type of requirements, something to maximize openness, both as in transparent and maximizing participation. If left to me, my primary restriction would be to eliminate anyone who wants the job [yes, that is a Robert Heinlein ref].

[willhud9]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

Again a PRIMARY SYSTEM isn't about who the citizens want. Bernie Sanders is more than capable of running third party in a general election. Donald Trump is more than capable of running third party in a general election. If they were so popular with the people than they would not be trying to cater to the political businesses of the parties.

But the parties decided it'd be best to let the decision of who will represent the party (and potentially become the leader of said party) by allowing the party constituents to vote.

Which means in some states if you are a registered independent, sucks for you, but the primary system is for the PARTIES to nominate the PARTY'S candidate to be the PARTY leader.

Those who keep moaning about how undemocratic it is really baffle me. It has never pretended to be otherwise. Just because people vote does not mean it is reflective of a direct democratic system. Rather it is set up by the two parties to help make nominating a candidate more viable.

[igorfrankensteen]

Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.

But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands. Or we need a constitutional amendment to eliminate any legislation or regulations that inhibit participation. The games the Dims played to keep Laurence Lessig off the ballots were pretty reprehensible.

Varying levels of understanding of what is and is not going on, in this collection of posts and counterposts.
And then crank, of course, goes back to demanding, essentially, that political parties be outlawed all together, without realizing that that's what he's saying. If people OTHER than those in your political group are allowed to dictate how your group functions, then independence is lost, democracy is lost, advocacy is lost, and so on.

Overall, it seems to have become very popular these days, for individuals to clamor to have their own personal sensibilities made into the law of the land, often exactly BECAUSE they have refused to think them through rationally at all. Sort of a "I feel annoyed, therefore I should get my way" kind of approach to government.

It's a horrible thing that this sort of posturing and thoughtless attitude receives as much praise as it does, and if it continues and increases, we will see even LESS personal liberty, and even LESS creativity in government following.

Back to primaries: they MUST remain what they are, for the most part, again, because their goal is NOT to nominate the person who the majority of the party members, want to have run the country.

You really got it right when you said I wouldn't realize that was what I said, because it has no relationship to what I said. The two dominate parties have managed to pass laws at federal and state level that erect massive roadblocks to other parties getting their candidates on the ballots. I think that should be stopped, how is that dictating to either of the two how they should select their nominees?

That specific change, would not be, though how to accomplish it would be complicated.

You made a very general statement which very much DID say (whether you meant it to or not) that the Government should make regulations on how every party is allowed to select their candidates. You did not say anything until now, about how some existing rules might prevent additional parties from participating.

And I think you might not have your details right on that, as well. The rules for the GENERAL ELECTION are separate from the rules for the PRIMARIES. Did you realize and allow for that in your concerns ?

[igorfrankensteen]

By the way, my detailing of all that does NOT mean that support each and every thing that each party chooses to do, to solve the challenge of picking a viable candidate. Both parties suffer from corruption. My point is, that who dictates the changes which need to be made in each, MUST NOT be anyone outside the parties themselves.

Restrictions can be placed, forcing them to set open rules that don't get altered arbitrarily when it suits their desires to thwart a nomination. Referencing what happened to Lessig was an error, that was just the media if I recall. They first said a million signatures, when he got that, they changed it to include polling at a certain percentage, and then left his name of the polling questions. Some kind of restrictions need to be in place to eliminate such bullshit, like requiring debate participation restrictions that are open and consistent. I don't want laws meddling with the process other than these type of requirements, something to maximize openness, both as in transparent and maximizing participation. If left to me, my primary restriction would be to eliminate anyone who wants the job [yes, that is a Robert Heinlein ref].

But again, if you have the GOVERNMENT step in and place those restrictions, democracy ends. Period. The parties are no longer allowed to decide for themselves, how they want to organize and select candidates.

[crank]

By the way, my detailing of all that does NOT mean that support each and every thing that each party chooses to do, to solve the challenge of picking a viable candidate. Both parties suffer from corruption. My point is, that who dictates the changes which need to be made in each, MUST NOT be anyone outside the parties themselves.

Restrictions can be placed, forcing them to set open rules that don't get altered arbitrarily when it suits their desires to thwart a nomination. Referencing what happened to Lessig was an error, that was just the media if I recall. They first said a million signatures, when he got that, they changed it to include polling at a certain percentage, and then left his name of the polling questions. Some kind of restrictions need to be in place to eliminate such bullshit, like requiring debate participation restrictions that are open and consistent. I don't want laws meddling with the process other than these type of requirements, something to maximize openness, both as in transparent and maximizing participation. If left to me, my primary restriction would be to eliminate anyone who wants the job [yes, that is a Robert Heinlein ref].

But again, if you have the GOVERNMENT step in and place those restrictions, democracy ends. Period. The parties are no longer allowed to decide for themselves, how they want to organize and select candidates.

That's utter bullshit. You seem to fail to acknowledge, or don't comprehend, the undemocratic way third parties are virtually impossible in this country, the two main parties have made sure of this. If the parties can't survive when the system is transparent and maximally open to new people and new parties, new ideas, then they shouldn't fucking be there.

[Willie71]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

Again a PRIMARY SYSTEM isn't about who the citizens want. Bernie Sanders is more than capable of running third party in a general election. Donald Trump is more than capable of running third party in a general election. If they were so popular with the people than they would not be trying to cater to the political businesses of the parties.

But the parties decided it'd be best to let the decision of who will represent the party (and potentially become the leader of said party) by allowing the party constituents to vote.

Which means in some states if you are a registered independent, sucks for you, but the primary system is for the PARTIES to nominate the PARTY'S candidate to be the PARTY leader.

Those who keep moaning about how undemocratic it is really baffle me. It has never pretended to be otherwise. Just because people vote does not mean it is reflective of a direct democratic system. Rather it is set up by the two parties to help make nominating a candidate more viable.

Sure, they can do whatever they want. However, I think it will catch up to a party who consistently miscounted in one candidate's favour, or staffers get caught trying to throw out ballots for the other candidate. To argue this is acceptible is nonsense. Either allow voting, or select the candidate without voting. Don't go through a charade.

[crank]

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands. Or we need a constitutional amendment to eliminate any legislation or regulations that inhibit participation. The games the Dims played to keep Laurence Lessig off the ballots were pretty reprehensible.

Varying levels of understanding of what is and is not going on, in this collection of posts and counterposts.
And then crank, of course, goes back to demanding, essentially, that political parties be outlawed all together, without realizing that that's what he's saying. If people OTHER than those in your political group are allowed to dictate how your group functions, then independence is lost, democracy is lost, advocacy is lost, and so on.

Overall, it seems to have become very popular these days, for individuals to clamor to have their own personal sensibilities made into the law of the land, often exactly BECAUSE they have refused to think them through rationally at all. Sort of a "I feel annoyed, therefore I should get my way" kind of approach to government.

It's a horrible thing that this sort of posturing and thoughtless attitude receives as much praise as it does, and if it continues and increases, we will see even LESS personal liberty, and even LESS creativity in government following.

Back to primaries: they MUST remain what they are, for the most part, again, because their goal is NOT to nominate the person who the majority of the party members, want to have run the country.

You really got it right when you said I wouldn't realize that was what I said, because it has no relationship to what I said. The two dominate parties have managed to pass laws at federal and state level that erect massive roadblocks to other parties getting their candidates on the ballots. I think that should be stopped, how is that dictating to either of the two how they should select their nominees?

That specific change, would not be, though how to accomplish it would be complicated.

You made a very general statement which very much DID say (whether you meant it to or not) that the Government should make regulations on how every party is allowed to select their candidates.

Where?

You did not say anything until now, about how some existing rules might prevent additional parties from participating.

What is this:

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands.

It's right up there^^ in your quoted text.

And I think you might not have your details right on that, as well. The rules for the GENERAL ELECTION are separate from the rules for the PRIMARIES. Did you realize and allow for that in your concerns ?

How am I confusing this, do you imagine I think third parties are running in the Dimocratic primary? I am trying to advocate for a system where the citizens have the maximum say in the outcome, not party elites, not media elites, not corporations. If that places some restrictions on parties, so fucking what? This country was founded to not have parties, they couldn't stop them from forming. They seem to be inevitable and even necessary, but trying to rid ourselves of some of the negatives of their existence seems like a pretty good idea to me. And all the restrictions I'm advocating don't keep the party from proffering anyone, it only stops them from stopping someone the elites don't like.

[crank]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

Again a PRIMARY SYSTEM isn't about who the citizens want. Bernie Sanders is more than capable of running third party in a general election. Donald Trump is more than capable of running third party in a general election. If they were so popular with the people than they would not be trying to cater to the political businesses of the parties.

But the parties decided it'd be best to let the decision of who will represent the party (and potentially become the leader of said party) by allowing the party constituents to vote.

Which means in some states if you are a registered independent, sucks for you, but the primary system is for the PARTIES to nominate the PARTY'S candidate to be the PARTY leader.

Those who keep moaning about how undemocratic it is really baffle me. It has never pretended to be otherwise. Just because people vote does not mean it is reflective of a direct democratic system. Rather it is set up by the two parties to help make nominating a candidate more viable.

Sure, they can do whatever they want. However, I think it will catch up to a party who consistently miscounted in one candidate's favour, or staffers get caught trying to throw out ballots for the other candidate. To argue this is acceptible is nonsense. Either allow voting, or select the candidate without voting. Don't go through a charade.

To me, the primaries are presented to the party members who get to vote in a certain way, and that way most definitely gives the voters the idea that their voting counts. Throwing out their votes, or seriously gaming the result, is a breech of an implied contract, and is clearly dishonest. If voters knew, they'd boot the offenders out, if not tar and feather them [Why don't we do this any more? There's a old practice that needs reviving.]

[Willie71]

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

Again a PRIMARY SYSTEM isn't about who the citizens want. Bernie Sanders is more than capable of running third party in a general election. Donald Trump is more than capable of running third party in a general election. If they were so popular with the people than they would not be trying to cater to the political businesses of the parties.

But the parties decided it'd be best to let the decision of who will represent the party (and potentially become the leader of said party) by allowing the party constituents to vote.

Which means in some states if you are a registered independent, sucks for you, but the primary system is for the PARTIES to nominate the PARTY'S candidate to be the PARTY leader.

Those who keep moaning about how undemocratic it is really baffle me. It has never pretended to be otherwise. Just because people vote does not mean it is reflective of a direct democratic system. Rather it is set up by the two parties to help make nominating a candidate more viable.

Sure, they can do whatever they want. However, I think it will catch up to a party who consistently miscounted in one candidate's favour, or staffers get caught trying to throw out ballots for the other candidate. To argue this is acceptible is nonsense. Either allow voting, or select the candidate without voting. Don't go through a charade.

To me, the primaries are presented to the party members who get to vote in a certain way, and that way most definitely gives the voters the idea that their voting counts. Throwing out their votes, or seriously gaming the result, is a breech of an implied contract, and is clearly dishonest. If voters knew, they'd boot the offenders out, if not tar and feather them [Why don't we do this any more? There's a old practice that needs reviving.]

This is why Sanders needs to run through the convention. As these issues get more exposure, more people might get fed up. Many have, and these are the people saying the cannot bring themselves to vote for Clinton. The DNC has to weigh the risk/benefit of promoting Clinton at all odds. It might backfire. These issues were not so front and center in '08 like they are now. It's pretty hard to claim it's only a conspiracy theory when there is video evidence of these things going on.

[Byron]

Agreed, Sanders should keep running, keep getting his message out there, perhaps notch up a few more symbolic victories.

As for primary access, in a FPTP system, at election time, there's only two viable choices, and neither will be independent; that being so, independents should absolutely have a say in the selection of those choices. Otherwise, unless by luck a party elects someone they can live with, they're completely disenfranchised.

On pragmatic grounds, it helps to know which candidates independents are likely to support in the general. I've no problem with independents being limited to voting in one party's contest, as is usually the case in open primaries.

[laklak]

Poor Ted, looks like NY values bit him in the ass. A satisfying result, from a schadenfreudeish perspective. In the current political climate you take your laughs where you can get them. I'll bet the GOP movers and shakers are frantically scouring the rulebook for a way to bring Mittens back. Or maybe McCain. McCain vs Sanders, wouldn't that be fun? Adult diapers at 10 paces.

The Donald could still pull it off, but it's looking dicey. I think it would be hilarious if it came down the to the umpledged delegates from Guam. I can see Trump Casinos soaring over the beaches now...

[tuco]

When I saw the Trump Tower I was reminded .. once we worked in private apartment there and somehow my hammer broke a huge mirror like surface on a wall and I got fired lol

[igorfrankensteen]

By the way, my detailing of all that does NOT mean that support each and every thing that each party chooses to do, to solve the challenge of picking a viable candidate. Both parties suffer from corruption. My point is, that who dictates the changes which need to be made in each, MUST NOT be anyone outside the parties themselves.

Restrictions can be placed, forcing them to set open rules that don't get altered arbitrarily when it suits their desires to thwart a nomination. Referencing what happened to Lessig was an error, that was just the media if I recall. They first said a million signatures, when he got that, they changed it to include polling at a certain percentage, and then left his name of the polling questions. Some kind of restrictions need to be in place to eliminate such bullshit, like requiring debate participation restrictions that are open and consistent. I don't want laws meddling with the process other than these type of requirements, something to maximize openness, both as in transparent and maximizing participation. If left to me, my primary restriction would be to eliminate anyone who wants the job [yes, that is a Robert Heinlein ref].

But again, if you have the GOVERNMENT step in and place those restrictions, democracy ends. Period. The parties are no longer allowed to decide for themselves, how they want to organize and select candidates.

That's utter bullshit. You seem to fail to acknowledge, or don't comprehend, the undemocratic way third parties are virtually impossible in this country, the two main parties have made sure of this. If the parties can't survive when the system is transparent and maximally open to new people and new parties, new ideas, then they shouldn't fucking be there.

Either we are talking about completely different things, or you don't understand how political parties function.

If we are talking about PRIMARIES, then "third" parties and other outsiders have nothing to do with anything. If we talk about the actual election instead, the entire scope of the subject matter shifts dramatically.

[igorfrankensteen]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

There were issues in multiple states, caucuses and primaries. It doesn't matter who won in the end. We don't know what the citizens truly want with this system.

Again a PRIMARY SYSTEM isn't about who the citizens want. Bernie Sanders is more than capable of running third party in a general election. Donald Trump is more than capable of running third party in a general election. If they were so popular with the people than they would not be trying to cater to the political businesses of the parties.

But the parties decided it'd be best to let the decision of who will represent the party (and potentially become the leader of said party) by allowing the party constituents to vote.

Which means in some states if you are a registered independent, sucks for you, but the primary system is for the PARTIES to nominate the PARTY'S candidate to be the PARTY leader.

Those who keep moaning about how undemocratic it is really baffle me. It has never pretended to be otherwise. Just because people vote does not mean it is reflective of a direct democratic system. Rather it is set up by the two parties to help make nominating a candidate more viable.

Sure, they can do whatever they want. However, I think it will catch up to a party who consistently miscounted in one candidate's favour, or staffers get caught trying to throw out ballots for the other candidate. To argue this is acceptible is nonsense. Either allow voting, or select the candidate without voting. Don't go through a charade.

Two separate issues are being conflated in this thread:

* the idea that each political party has set up "unfair" procedures for selecting candidates;

* the idea that there is corruption WITHIN the existing selection process, such that it isn't even being followed as specified.

Thus the fact that some party rules allow the party leadership to all but completely ignore the votes or caucus results of their own primaries, is a PROCEDURAL issue that some people don't like. The fact that some people are actually cheating, and purposely miscounting ballots, or preventing party members from casting votes, is an entirely separate issue.

Just as concerns about the PRIMARY rules, are an entirely separate issue from concerns about the GENERAL ELECTION rules.

[igorfrankensteen]

Agreed, Sanders should keep running, keep getting his message out there, perhaps notch up a few more symbolic victories.

As for primary access, in a FPTP system, at election time, there's only two viable choices, and neither will be independent; that being so, independents should absolutely have a say in the selection of those choices. Otherwise, unless by luck a party elects someone they can live with, they're completely disenfranchised.

On pragmatic grounds, it helps to know which candidates independents are likely to support in the general. I've no problem with independents being limited to voting in one party's contest, as is usually the case in open primaries.

I disagree partially. There is no reason why people who do NOT want to be a member of a political party should have a right to vote in it as though they are. There ARE good reasons why a party might WANT to let independents have a say in the selection of candidates, for the practical reason you gave. In a number of States here, one or both parties allow any registered voter to have a say in their primary, if they like. But some strongly oppose including non-party members, precisely to avoid the notion that the opponents would purposely vote FOR the worst candidate, in order to have an easier target come the general election.

However, to say that people who choose not to be party members are "disenfranchised" in the primary, is not logical. Depending on the state, they might be allowed to run themselves, start another party, or have other choices. But from logic alone, they would only be DISENFRANCHISED, if they were prohibited from joining a party.

[Byron]

True, theyre not technically disenfranchised; but if their only choice is to join an organization they profoundly disagre with, or vote for a candidate they'd no say in choosing, and again, profoundly disagre with, they're effectively disenfranchised.

This would of course be different if the system were proportional, but it isn't.