In general, there are three basic primary election participation models used in the United States:. In 22 states, at least one political party utilizes open primaries to nominate partisan candidates for congressional and state-level e.
In 15 states, at least one party utilizes closed primaries to nominate partisan candidates for these offices. In 14 states, at least one party utilizes semi-closed primaries. In two California and Washington , top-two primaries are utilized.
In Massachusetts, a voter who is affiliated with a political party can vote only in that party's primary. If a vote is unaffiliated with a political party, he or she may vote in the primary of his or her choice. The winner of a primary election is the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes, even if the candidate does not receive an outright majority of votes cast. The table below lists Massachusetts offices for which parties must conduct primary elections to nominate their candidates.
The following is a list of recent primary election systems bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Massachusetts state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title.
This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan. Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently. Since , Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure s relating to primary elections in Massachusetts. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers.
Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. In what was certain to be an vote, he would be the ideal eighth.
So trusted as an independent was the justice that it was said, "No one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred. But before the commission could meet, the Democratic-controlled legislature in Illinois offered Davis a vacant seat in the U. Senate, hoping Davis would decline but be grateful to Democrats for the gesture.
Republican newspapers denounced the scheme, but Davis flummoxed the Democrats by resigning from the bench to accept the appointment. With Davis now ineligible, one of the remaining four justices would be forced to sit in his place. Each was associated with one of the political parties. Grant was chosen to take Davis' place. Democrats claimed a fix, but after the Davis fiasco their credibility was strained.
Bradley accepted the appointment and thus became the only man in American history empowered to choose a president on his own. Before deciding which man would be declared the winner, Bradley meticulously drew up a written opinion for each man, and then, after all this supposed soul-searching, surprised no one and chose Hayes.
Democrats once more threatened rebellion. Rumors circulated that an army of , men was prepared to march on the capital to prevent "Rutherfraud" or "His Fraudulency" from being sworn in. In the House of Representatives, Democrats began a filibuster to prevent Hayes' inauguration.
What happened next has been a subject of debate among scholars ever since. There, in the traditional smoke-filled room, emissaries of Hayes agreed to abandon the Republican state governments in Louisiana and South Carolina while southern Democrats agreed to abandon the filibuster and thus trade off the presidency in exchange for the end of Reconstruction.
As one of his first orders of business, this supposed defender of African American rights ordered federal troops withdrawn from the South. When the soldiers marched out, they took Reconstruction and equal rights with them. The election had all the elements that will potentially be present in a nation cleaved in two; a resurgence of white supremacy; accusations of voter fraud; corrupt election officials; an influential media outlet seeking to overturn the result; even the distinct possibility of armed conflict.
But that election had something the contest will not — a convenient scapegoat that allowed both sides to overcome their mutual loathing and come together in compromise: African Americans. Democrats were so determined to end the military occupation in the South and thereby have an open field to restore white minority rule and return Black Americans to slavery in all but name that they were willing to sacrifice the presidency to do it.
The perpetuation of free elections, the cornerstone of democracy, transcends — or should transcend — partisan politics. All Americans, be they Democrats, Republicans or independents, can and should commit themselves to thwarting any effort, no matter from where on the ideological spectrum it emanates, to destroy that which untold thousands of their fellow citizens fought and died for. Democracy is precious but cannot be preserved through apathy.
The nation needs desperately for people of good faith, regardless of political affiliation, to join together so that our form of government can be passed on to generations to come. Eight months after Inauguration Day, one-third of Americans told pollsters they still believed Donald Trump actually won the election and that Joe Biden stole it away from the incumbent.
A new report offers a mix of government and corporate reforms to limit the spread and influence of such election disinformation. The Common Cause Education Fund, an affiliate of the democracy reform advocacy group Common Cause, issued a report in late October reviewing the state of disinformation campaigns and a series of recommendations designed to stem the tide.
The report groups its 14 recommendations in three categories: statutory reforms, executive and regulatory agency reforms, and corporate policy reforms for social media businesses. While many of the solutions require some mix of legislative activity, increased civic education and media literacy, and grassroots advocacy, others are easier to achieve — particularly self-imposed corporate reforms, said Jesse Littlewood, vice president of campaigns for Common Cause.
For example, he suggested it would not be complicated for social media platforms to consistently enforce their own standards. Some aspects of these proposals already exist in federal legislation that has stalled in Congress. Littlewood said access to the data is one of the most important recommendations, as it influences the potential to achieve others. It's very difficult to come up with recommendations that balance the private interests of the platform and the public interest.
That's got to be our starting point. Read the full report. Jasper Johns' work will be on display in two of the country's most famous art museums concurrently, through Feb. Johns' career spans some 65 years. A Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, the painter came of age around the time abstract expressionism had taken hold in the New York art world.
Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko were some of the more notable artists creating "cathedrals … out of their own feelings. Johns' early artistic rise coincided with the waning of the "ab ex" movement. Some suggest that his younger work pays homage to this school while also nodding to the emergent pop art scene — he pulls off a curious, thought-provoking blend of the quotidian and authentic gestural self-expression.
Among Johns' favorite subjects, the American flag. Why the flag? Johns is notoriously tight-lipped when it comes to the interpretation of his work. His party-line response when asked about his fascination with the flag is to say that the imagery comes from "things the mind already knows. So what exactly is Jasper Johns' "private experience" of the public symbol that is the American flag? This is of course a question the artist has never really answered, but one nevertheless that a number of his paintings with their recurring stars-and-stripes motif poses.
This doesn't really seem a coincidence, as art, culture and current events all seem to have a rather curious way of converging on provocatively interpretable planes. Gazing through the lens of the moment's political and social climate and trying to understand Johns' "flags" accordingly, means contextualizing the art. But what exactly is the context? The flag has been the subject of many artists' work; Johns is not unique in that endeavor, though he is perhaps among the most famous, if not most enigmatic, depicters of Old Glory.
David Cole and Keith Haring, for instance, also created highly memorable art using the flag as a prompt:. Haring's trademark faceless figures tend to signify the common humanness of people in this country while, at the same time, suggesting that our differences are what gives the flag any sort of meaning. Cole's iteration featuring toy soldiers melted down and painted over in red, white and blue is intended to evoke in an "emotional, visceral way — the way the world is now.
If we look at Johns' iconic "Three Flags," we encounter a representation of "flag as subjective experience" versus just "flag as flag. Johns used encaustic, which is a wax-based substance.
The results are textural, meaning there is a tactile quality to this painting that just screams out for people to touch it though the folks at the Whitney would highly advise against this. In this implicit call to touch, perhaps the artist is suggesting that people can stake their own claim on this patriotic territory, and that's the point. The dimensionality here is also key, giving the flag a distinct 3D space of its own that could also be interpreted as invading the space of the audience.
As the artist himself is not exactly forthcoming about what we are "supposed" to see, it is left up to the individual onlooker to determine what in fact they are looking at. Are they seeing an emblem of liberty and justice for all? Is it a nostalgic symbol of the world our grandparents and parents went to war to preserve?
Or is it something else? Is it, for example, what singer Macy Gray called a "dated, divisive, and incorrect" symbol of the Jan. Is it that which compelled NFL quarterback turned civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick to take a knee?
We need only look around at the versions of Old Glory that have sprung up throughout the years —each with its own messaging, each representing its own symbology and each laying claim to its own 3D space:. So where does this leave us in terms of what the flag means today, in terms of what Jasper Johns was trying to "say" with his recurrent use of the symbol, in terms of our own journeys where Americanness is concerned?
I have to admit, I personally harbor some ambivalence when it comes to the Stars and Stripes. But then, I think of my immigrant mother who flies a flag on her front porch because she is proud of what that flag symbolizes and the space it gave her to carve out a better life here, to embark on a fulfilling career and to raise a family.
Every day I take a walk around my neighborhood and honestly, I have to say I never noticed this until I began working on this article:. This is one of the best depictions of the American flag I have ever seen because of the way it is painted, the canvas on which it is painted, the place where I found it and its current condition. I know exactly what it means to me, and I suppose I shall take a cue from Jasper Johns and let you decide what it means to you.
Rob Fersh of Convergence joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career in politics and how Convergence is bringing groups together with conflicting views to build trust and find solutions to critical national issues. In workplaces and living rooms across the country, people are having hard conversations about the Covid vaccine. And with Thanksgiving around the corner, we'll soon be navigating these vaccination questions for family get-togethers and holiday gatherings.
Talking about vaccination can arouse deep-seated anxieties related to safety, health and autonomy. High-stakes conversations like these can unravel quickly.
Wrong words or bad assumptions can thrust a relationship into repetitive cycles of defensiveness, mistrust and antagonism. If you've ever seen Thanksgiving dinner devolve into a shouting argument about politics, you know what this looks like — and you know how painful it can be, not only for the people involved but for a whole community. The conversations we have in private are also microcosms of our public discourse, where some people bemoan "anti-vaxxers" who "don't believe in science" while unvaccinated people who are anxious about the government or the medical system might feel that their concerns aren't being heard at all.
This dynamic serves no one. It generates even more mistrust and makes us no safer or healthier. How do we do better? We can begin by drawing out the individual experiences that lie beneath a person's values and perspectives.
The intricacy and subtlety of a person's own story can interrupt these toxic cycles — without asking anyone to compromise their core beliefs. I have a friend who got pregnant during Covid Weighing the risks and benefits with her doctor, she chose not to get vaccinated. She and her partner had struggled with fertility for so long, they were terrified to complicate the pregnancy.
Another friend, with the same basic background and the same information, got vaccinated the second she was eligible after getting pregnant. She was terrified of complicating an already high-risk pregnancy with Covid These two friends began, more or less, in the same place. They arrived at different decisions through a series of values-based choices. They made the best decisions they could at each step, trying to protect themselves and their pregnancies.
I have another friend who has a compromised immune system. After the vaccine was approved, she drove for 10 hours from Colorado to Kansas to get vaccinated — it was the closest available appointment.
Yet another friend, with a congenital kidney disorder, has yet to get vaccinated. The doctor said that they truly could not predict the side effects of the vaccine, or its effectiveness, for people with the disease. Balancing the risks, they decided that it is safer to follow other precautions, like masking. Now my friend is worried that, at some point, they'll be mandated by their employer or by the government to get it anyway.
These and many, many other individual stories explode the public debate over vaccinations, which oversimplifies the decisions people face and villainizes those who disagree with you. Few people would enter honestly into a conversation where they expect to be demeaned. Those conversations are pre-determined to fail — they fail to persuade, they fail to make us all safer, they fail to sustain our relationships and communities.
As long as we're engaging in toxic, polarized, zero-sum debates about COVID vaccinations, we're going to struggle to build effective policies and public trust, both of which are needed for public health. We can begin to change the national conversation by having better conversations about vaccination in our private lives. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. If you want to engage in a deeper, more meaningful dialogue about vaccines, especially with someone who might disagree with you, here are three questions to ask yourself before you start the conversation:.
One way to look at this is to say there is no primary election--just a general election for all candidates, with a runoff when needed. In Nebraska, legislators are elected on a nonpartisan basis. This means they run without a party designation, and all candidates are on the same nonpartisan primary ballot. This system is common for local nonpartisan offices throughout the nation. States may have radically different systems for how they conduct their state and presidential primaries: Some states hold their state and presidential primaries on the same day, some hold them weeks or even months apart, and some hold the two primaries on the same day but have different rules for each primary.
Create Account. State Primary Election Types. This website uses cookies to analyze traffic and for other purposes. No, you do not. If you do not select a political party on your voter registration application, you will be "unaffiliated" with any political party.
This means that you will generally not be able to vote in party primary elections, but you will be able to vote in any nonpartisan primary elections held in your jurisdiction, such as a primary election to select nominees for the board of education.
Yes, if you will be 18 years old or older by the general election and you are registered to vote with the Democratic or Republican Party. Skip to Main Content.
0コメント