As this rule is written, we can't limit our primaries to party members. If someone wishes to run who is not a party member, we need to afford them that opportunity.
Of course, there are worthy arguments for a closed primary system. Those arguments notwithstanding, we shouldn't be a party that says one thing, but does another. We should stick to our word...if we don't do that, then all our words are empty, and mean nothing.
I appreciate the effort that went into this post, but I really don't understand where you're getting the idea that we don't allow people who aren't party members to run. We endorse non-party members all the time. For Christ's sake, even our presidential candidate this cycle wasn't a member of the party. If a person requests endorsement and is *voted down democratically by members of the party*, of course we have no business endorsing said person.
Reviewing the past primaries/election cycle, I see more than one instance where someone wished to run for our party's nomination, but were denied that opportunity (seemingly by executive decision).
Examples?
Now for part two of my argument. As I see things, this party is rapidly slipping into irrelevance. We can't keep going this way. How long has it been since we won a presidential race, do you think? How long has it been since we've held a federal majority? I don't know the exact answer to that....but it's been WAY TOO LONG.
It's easy to make the observation that 'we can't keep going this way,' and it's also easy to blame the party for 'not doing enough.' But the fact of the matter is that Labor has a voter registration edge of 43 votes, which is actually closer to 60 votes when you factor in Peace and the LJP. Perhaps you can tell us where we're supposed to find 43 votes (or more accurately, a
net 43 votes, because Labor will surely be doing their own recruiting as well)?
