Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Certainly likely given the razor thin margin. But it didn't need to just be Republicans. If more people in general voted in primaries ME would not be county executive. I do think you should be careful what you wish for because if more Republicans (registered as Democrats) participate in primaries and lead to the nomination of more moderate candidates, there's a strong possibility that also motivates more progressives to come out to vote in future primaries.

Progressive activists already vote in primaries. There is not some secret well of progressive liberal voters. The people missing are the people upcounty, which is not a progressives. The threat of unleashing a progressive reaction is hilarious.

Given the low voter turnout, there is a secret well of basically every voter - except the mythical "THIS TIME people will say they've had enough and vote for Republicans!" voters which the county Republican Party brings up with great optimism at every election.

Primary turnout in Silver Spring and Takoma Park precincts is substantially higher than anywhere else in the county. That’s just a fact and it’s why the At-Large Councilmembers are almost always from that area.

Higher, but still low.

Also, no, that's not why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Certainly likely given the razor thin margin. But it didn't need to just be Republicans. If more people in general voted in primaries ME would not be county executive. I do think you should be careful what you wish for because if more Republicans (registered as Democrats) participate in primaries and lead to the nomination of more moderate candidates, there's a strong possibility that also motivates more progressives to come out to vote in future primaries.

Progressive activists already vote in primaries. There is not some secret well of progressive liberal voters. The people missing are the people upcounty, which is not a progressives. The threat of unleashing a progressive reaction is hilarious.

Given the low voter turnout, there is a secret well of basically every voter - except the mythical "THIS TIME people will say they've had enough and vote for Republicans!" voters which the county Republican Party brings up with great optimism at every election.

Primary turnout in Silver Spring and Takoma Park precincts is substantially higher than anywhere else in the county. That’s just a fact and it’s why the At-Large Councilmembers are almost always from that area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP likes declining schools, increasing crime, high taxes, and anemic economic growth I guess. Par for the course for Europeans. It explains why the EU's economy barely grows.

I'd be fine with an economy that "barely grows" if everyone were doing OK. And I don't mean equally well. Just appropriately housed, fed, with good education, health care, community safety, and real jobs. Progressives do band aid fixes instead of looking at systemic fixes. We have a completely different population now than we did 30 years ago. Where is the plan to create jobs and job pathways? For people who can't rely on Mommy and Daddy's connections and wealth? a guaranteed minimum income pilot is a feel-good thing. Not a sustainable thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Certainly likely given the razor thin margin. But it didn't need to just be Republicans. If more people in general voted in primaries ME would not be county executive. I do think you should be careful what you wish for because if more Republicans (registered as Democrats) participate in primaries and lead to the nomination of more moderate candidates, there's a strong possibility that also motivates more progressives to come out to vote in future primaries.

Progressive activists already vote in primaries. There is not some secret well of progressive liberal voters. The people missing are the people upcounty, which is not a progressives. The threat of unleashing a progressive reaction is hilarious.

Given the low voter turnout, there is a secret well of basically every voter - except the mythical "THIS TIME people will say they've had enough and vote for Republicans!" voters which the county Republican Party brings up with great optimism at every election.

Anonymous wrote:

Yet you left Germany. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Certainly likely given the razor thin margin. But it didn't need to just be Republicans. If more people in general voted in primaries ME would not be county executive. I do think you should be careful what you wish for because if more Republicans (registered as Democrats) participate in primaries and lead to the nomination of more moderate candidates, there's a strong possibility that also motivates more progressives to come out to vote in future primaries.

Progressive activists already vote in primaries. There is not some secret well of progressive liberal voters. The people missing are the people upcounty, which is not a progressives. The threat of unleashing a progressive reaction is hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:I actually really like Montgomery County’s local government. I used to live in Germany. It seems like on the local level the local Council is governing closest to a more European-style system than anywhere else in America. Regulations are good, actually. Including regulations that seem to be meaningless to you, such as proclamations against hate speech. You may think this isn’t important, but it is. I think it’s a good thing to have a controlled bureaucracy in place rather than a free-for-all. It is true that businesses face more hurdles to get going, but once they’re off the ground you can trust that everything is done thoroughly and efficiently. I’m glad there is balance on zoning and transit and that people here generally value their taxes going to more public services.

Anyway, I personally have a lot of criticism about the American government and the hyper-privatized nature of institutions, whereas MoCo’s system of governance gives me more of a Northern European vibe. I think most of the council and Elrich especially would align with center-left pro-labor coalitions which is very normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Certainly likely given the razor thin margin. But it didn't need to just be Republicans. If more people in general voted in primaries ME would not be county executive. I do think you should be careful what you wish for because if more Republicans (registered as Democrats) participate in primaries and lead to the nomination of more moderate candidates, there's a strong possibility that also motivates more progressives to come out to vote in future primaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

+1

I agree. I will tell the previous poster what I told my 80-year-old mom, registering as a Democrat does not change your beliefs. It simply gives you a voice with the majority of the people in this county. It doesn’t mean you change your ideologies.

This would be the same advice i would give a Democrat in a heavily Republican area. If you want your vote to have a say for a more conservative, or moderate Democrat, then do something to participate in it. If more Republicans and independence had switch parties and voted in the primaries, I guarantee you that ME would not be our executive today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Don't worry, you don't have to associate with anybody, you just have to check a different box on the voter registration form. Obviously the system could be set up in a different way. However, you get to decide which is more important to you: not checking that box, or participating in Democracy. And if not checking that box is more important to you, that says something too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Why should someone have to compromise their Constitutional right for freedom of association just to participate in Democracy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

There's nothing stopping residents from registering as Democrats to vote in the primary and have a say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point

It’s not really. 40% of residents are not registered as Democrats which means that they have no say in the process for selecting their representatives who are elected primarily by the most partisan Democrats who vote in the primary. We are talking a fraction of a fraction of eligible voters controlling who gets elected.

In a top 2 primary system like California, most of the folks currently serving would not be elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back to your original point, while I don’t like the Montgomery county government, and did not vote for them, the majority of the county does, so you are not alone in your opinion.

Fair point