Open and Closed Primaries

Well, I see the arguments over and over again to allow anyone to vote in anyone’s primary regardless of their party affiliation.  I used to wonder about that as well but have come to the conclusion that the argument doesn’t hold water. If you are having a private party and I want to crash it, do I have that right?

Here is a list of states showing primary status:

Now, here’s an explanation: An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party’s ballot and vote for that party’s nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the general election.  The arguments for open primaries are that voters can make independent choices, building consensus that the electoral process is not splintered or undermined by the presence of multiple political parties.

Opponents of the open primary argue that the open primary is unconstitutional. These opponents believe that the open primary law violates their freedom of association, because it forces them to allow outsiders to select their candidates.

So, that’s what I don’t get.  If you choose non-affiliation so you don’t have to be associated with the nasty republicans or the tree hugging democrats, fine. Why should you then have the right to vote in their primary on the candidates their members have put up for nomination to office? (Kinda like refusing to join a union but expecting the union to fight for your rights and ensure your pay is equal to theirs right?)

How about this…you don’t like either party’s nominations? write in your vote in the general election. Or vote third party. Or don’t vote.

But if you really want to be involved, take a stand and register as a Republican or a Democrat.  Let’s face it, the third parties are fun to watch but have NO chance of ever getting elected.  Maybe the independents should create their own party??




Working After Retirement?

Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71.0 years (68.5 years for males and 73.5 years for females) over the period 2010–2013 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2012 Revision, or 70.7 years (68.2 years for males and 73.2 years for females) for 2009 according to The World Factbook.

I always wondered about those who were able to retire from a career after 20 years (say 38 years old) then collect retirement while going to a second career for another 20 years (say 58 years old) then going on to another career….collecting two or three retirements and social security as well.

Due to our economy and pensions being paid out (as well as social security) I just wonder what might be the result if say folks were able to continue working in their chosen field longer but with fewer hours? Kinda backing off a full 40 hour (or 80?) work week.  Maybe say after 60 having their work week reduced by 5 hours a week per year until the age of 68 or 70….keeps them in the work force, allows new people to come in and be trained.

Perhaps phase in social security over that same time period so that full retirement at 70 is the rule instead of the exception.

Just a thought