Democrats could figure out that Winchell’s customers are 80% Democrat and 20% Republican and have a SuperPAC make in investment in Winchell’s if they ran such a promotion.
Also, say there was firearms legislation on the ticket and a local gun shop offered a free case of bullets to everyone who proved they voted. The benefit would go overwhelmingly to voters who were pro-firearm.
How “plausible” are primary candidates if they can’t put together a 50 State effort? Or a combination of States that would give them 271 electoral college votes?
California, Iowa, North Dakota, and Texas have their own primary and general election rules and each political party have their primary and convention rules. If you have a problem with how primaries are handled in Iowa, you’ll have to take it up with the voters and the voters can pressure the party(ies) if they wish to.
I’m usually not the one using the pithy quotes. Sometimes I use them thinking everyone understands what they really mean, but they don’t though. So you’re right.
I don’t ever say “money equals speech” for just that reason.
I see you’ve clarified that, I’ll respond there.
Okay, still don’t get this. Huh? What’s it got to do with the legality of limiting money spent on speech?
How about a $100 tax break for every taxpayer? Close enough?
So money spent wholesale to influence voters is fine. Money spent retail to influence voters is not. Got it. Doesn’t make sense, but got it.
Those are new quirks which would be due to money. You are rebutting points about existing quirks which aren’t.
You understand that the primaries aren’t all on the same day, right?
I understand that a run for the office of the President is a long, step-by-step process. The two major parties have primaries in every state and a few of the independent/3rd parties hold primaries also. It’s easy for the candidates and their top advisors to move from State to State but without a state organization in place to knock on doors, arrange appearences, make phone calls, collect donations, etc. the candidate has little chance of getting the State’s electoral votes. And if there is no chance of ever reaching 271+, you’re left with just a good story to tell the grandkids of what may have happened.
You are completely missing the point. People in Iowa get to vote for at least half a dozen primary candidates, all of whom may have a legitimate chance at the nomination. However, after Iowa and New Hampshire, fewer of them will and voters in each successive state will have fewer options.
Doesn’t make sense because you don’t “got it.” I don’t know what you’re talking about with retail vs. wholesale.
Money spent on a right is protected as part of that right. Pretty simple.
Just like the government couldn’t ban the sale of bibles, or ban newspapers from buying paper and ink, or ban accused criminals from paying lawyers (lawyers who work for free would still be allowed - good luck with that).
Simple concept.
You are the one who brought up existing quirks.
Never mind.
So… voting isn’t a right?
But how is money spent on buying votes not part of the right to free speech? How does it differ from buying ad space as “speech”?
Yes, and spending money to exercise the right to vote would also be a right. For instance, the government couldn’t forbid voters from spending money on gas to drive to the polls to vote.
It’s spending money to exercise the right that is part of the right.
Buying a vote isn’t speech.
Ads are speech.
See my post #50 on whether voting is speech. Advertisements are clearly speech, I don’t think voting is. Voting is voting.
Your point seems to be that you object to the process of how primaries are held. It would certainly seem simpler if all primaries were held on the same day. A National Primary Day. However, that would create problems of its own. Every candidate would have to begin with enough money and manpower to make their presence felt in all 50 States. As it is, a candidate that does well in Iowa and New Hampshire can count on receiving more money and more domestiques (Tour de France reference 
) to carry on their campaigns in other States.
Since the “primary system” was created long before the current mass media and internet availability made information instantly available, it’s certainly possible to create a National Primary Day. All you would need would be the permission of the national parties and the acceptance of most of the States.
We could also have a few regional primaries, like a series of 3 or 4 Super Tuesdays.
Allowing someone to buy someone elses vote, the actual vote itself (the marking of the ballot), undermines the democratic process of one person, one vote.
It’s been decided, and backed up by law, that trying to INFLUENCE how people will vote is permissable as long as you aren’t actually directly compensating a person for their vote.
As with most laws, our elected representatives can change the laws.
That would still leave the issue of one primary being more influential/important than the others. Only a National Primary Day would address that concern. I’m not suggesting that a NPD is possible only that it would solve one of the problems of trying to allow tens of millions of party voters decide who would best represent their party.
Then there is the question of how to allow independent voters to participate in the primary process or if they should be allowed into the primary process. After all, it’s not “their” party. Indepenents can always start their own party. Some States require a voter to declare their party affiliation before voting. Others allow cross-party voting. 50 States = 50 sets of rules.
Is it possible to create five 10-State primaries?
Will there be a new “Flying Pig” party? 