Saving money sounds like a great idea, but cutting "we the people" out of the voting process is not something that should be equated to dollars and cents. It is a very bad idea and sets an awful precedent.
Does this eliminate need for election commission?
"The local Democrat and Republican parties are looking to save the county a little cash this year by forgoing their traditional primary elections." Great, who are you? This is a sad place.
Why does it cost the Democrats, who do not have multiple candidates, twice as much to hold a caucus as it does the Republicans, who have 'quite a few candidates'?
You could hold an election and not like who won, then put the other guy in. You know like the democrats did to Rosalind Kurita.
Farmall writes "You could hold an election and not like who won, then put the other guy in. You know like the democrats did to Rosalind Kurita."
I'm still trying to figure out thay managed to usurp the clear will of the voters with that stunt.
The small group of leaders in the local Republican Party want to control the nominees instead of looking outside their own clique of people! It's not truly a money savings idea.