Allowing independents and third party members to vote in primaries.

[maquiscat]

So lately, I have been seeing ads for a group (or maybe groups? Didn't really pay attention to names) pushing for laws to allow people who are not registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary election. So I wanted to see what opinions were on the issue.

I find myself of two minds here. On the one hand I would love the ability to vote in any and all primaries to help pick the best candidates for each. As a party independent libertarian, I have liked or prefered candidates from all the parties. On the other hand, I fully recognize that the political parties are not part of the government system and as such are subject to the same freedoms and limits as other private organizations. In reality, neither the Republican nor the Democrat parties are required to have primary elections. Most of the third parties don't. While it is right and proper that a person not be prevented from voting in a primary due to race, age (save age of majority), sex, etc, I find that there is no compelling argument as to why someone who is not registered to the party should be allowed to participate in what is essentially a private affair. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if it became mandatory for primaries to allow all voters, not just party registered ones, to vote in the primaries, the GOP would simply not hold them. I hold the position that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to force them to use a primary for their candidate selection. Democrats would probably continue to hold them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too just got rid of them.

So, let's hear what you all have to say. Should we allow anyone (assume properly registered to vote regardless of party affiliation) to vote in primaries? Why or why not? Should we mandate that the parties have primaries, and if it is mandated, does that change your answer as to whether anyone can vote in them? Why or why not on the first part and what makes the difference if you changed your answer on the second part?

 

[Mycroft]

So lately, I have been seeing ads for a group (or maybe groups? Didn't really pay attention to names) pushing for laws to allow people who are not registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary election. So I wanted to see what opinions were on the issue.

I find myself of two minds here. On the one hand I would love the ability to vote in any and all primaries to help pick the best candidates for each. As a party independent libertarian, I have liked or prefered candidates from all the parties. On the other hand, I fully recognize that the political parties are not part of the government system and as such are subject to the same freedoms and limits as other private organizations. In reality, neither the Republican nor the Democrat parties are required to have primary elections. Most of the third parties don't. While it is right and proper that a person not be prevented from voting in a primary due to race, age (save age of majority), sex, etc, I find that there is no compelling argument as to why someone who is not registered to the party should be allowed to participate in what is essentially a private affair. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if it became mandatory for primaries to allow all voters, not just party registered ones, to vote in the primaries, the GOP would simply not hold them. I hold the position that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to force them to use a primary for their candidate selection. Democrats would probably continue to hold them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too just got rid of them.

So, let's hear what you all have to say. Should we allow anyone (assume properly registered to vote regardless of party affiliation) to vote in primaries? Why or why not? Should we mandate that the parties have primaries, and if it is mandated, does that change your answer as to whether anyone can vote in them? Why or why not on the first part and what makes the difference if you changed your answer on the second part?

When you get right down to fundamentals, political parties are clubs. No person who is not a member of the club should have the right to interject themselves in how that club works or what they do. Any law that allows that interjection is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That also applies to any law that mandates that a political party...a club...must hold primaries.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Here in Texas party membership is not necessary to vote in a primary. I might vote in the Democratic primary or in the Republican primary. But not in both during the same election period.

When the general election rolls out, I might well vote for a mix of Democrat, Republicans and Independent/Third party candidates.

 

[SkyChief]

I think that independents and third party members should be allowed to vote in primaries.

The right to vote is the cornerstone principle of any democracy.

 

[maquiscat]

I think that independents and third party members should be allowed to vote in primaries.

The right to vote is the cornerstone principle of any democracy.

While I agree with the bolded, you do understand that primaries are not part of the elections laid out in the constitution. Only the general election is part of that. Primaries is something that came out later, and was purely developed by the parties. Originally party candidates were selected by the members of that party in Congress.

So outside of a very generalized quip, tell me why you feel that we should have the equivalent of a Brit voting in the US presidential election?

 

[BirdinHand]

Here in NJ - you can change party affiliation at any time. You have to be registered as X to vote in a primary Y days before the primary.

(Not sure of the # days off the top of my head)

it’s a fair system

 

[SkyChief]

While I agree with the bolded, you do understand that primaries are not part of the elections laid out in the constitution. Only the general election is part of that. Primaries is something that came out later, and was purely developed by the parties. Originally party candidates were selected by the members of that party in Congress.

Excellent points.

So outside of a very generalized quip, tell me why you feel that we should have the equivalent of a Brit voting in the US presidential election?

This is a textbook example of the False Analogy logical fallacy.

A Brit voting in the US presidential election would be ENTIRELY different than American voters participating in the American election process (and Primaries are part of the election process)

 

[pinqy]

When you get right down to fundamentals, political parties are clubs. No person who is not a member of the club should have the right to interject themselves in how that club works or what they do. Any law that allows that interjection is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That also applies to any law that mandates that a political party...a club...must hold primaries.

So how do you handle that in Virginia, where there is no party registration?

Here, when you vote in the primary, you do have to declare which primary you’ll vote in when you show up to vote, but there’s no official affiliation.

 

[btthegreat]

No. Members of the party guide their party through their choices at the ballot box. Its the only way they can control what their party stands for, what ideals it represents, what direction it should take.

If its members decide to swing further left, or towards the center. Those are risks the party has to bear. Independents should play no direct role. But the desire to attract those same voters will be crucial to the party's success in the general election.

 

[Minerva]

In my state the primaries are closed, meaning you can only vote for the candidates of your party. But the state also allows the parties to open their primaries to non-affiliated (independent) voters if that party wishes. Typically the Democrats open theirs, the Republicans do not.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I think that independents and third party members should be allowed to vote in primaries.

The right to vote is the cornerstone principle of any democracy.

The primary is the means by which a political party selects their candidates for an election. Why should people who are not members of a given party have a say in selecting a party's candidate?

 

[Safiel]

When you get right down to fundamentals, political parties are clubs. No person who is not a member of the club should have the right to interject themselves in how that club works or what they do. Any law that allows that interjection is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That also applies to any law that mandates that a political party...a club...must hold primaries.

Good lord.

I agree with you on something.

Party primaries are one of the stupid things that arose out of the government reform movements of the 1880's through 1910's.

Outside of the United States, the party primary is all but non-existent.

 

[Safiel]

Here in North Carolina, you can register with a party or as non-affiliated.

A non-affiliated can take the primary ballot of their choice each year.

 

[Mycroft]

So how do you handle that in Virginia, where there is no party registration?

Here, when you vote in the primary, you do have to declare which primary you’ll vote in when you show up to vote, but there’s no official affiliation.

If I were a member of a party in VA, I would be totally against that system. It invites shenanigans...for example, Republicans could flood the Democratic primary and prevent the candidate that the Dems want from getting the nomination and vice versa. I don't see how either party would want your system...unless they want those shenanigans to be an option.

 

[Tangmo]

Too many so called Independents are wackjobs who gave us Trump in 2016 and everything about the march of fascism each and every day since January 2017.

Independents came around again in 2024 to give us Trump again and this time his Heritage fascism too that is now unstoppable. By early 2026 Trump-Heritage fascism will be an all but done deal. There will be no more free and fair elections.

There are 100million MagaMorons in the states that vote in whatever way that benefits Trump, whether it is to vote for him or not to vote against him.

I reject a Don Jr. clone voting in my party's primary to include any of the 100million like Don Jr. MagaMorons in any blue state's party primary voting. No to people who support JD Vance voting in my party's primaries throughout the country.

This is just another divisive snag against effective party politics and government itself.

 

[SkyChief]

The primary is the means by which a political party selects their candidates for an election.

The Primary is part of the Election process. ALL Americans should have the right to participate in the election process - no matter what their party affiliation is. In my opinion.

Why should people who are not members of a given party have a say in selecting a party's candidate?

Because it's possible that a non-party voter might be willing to vote for a candidate who is not in his or her Party.

I did this in 1992. I was a registered Republican at the time, and I voted for Bill Clinton in the Primary, and also for Clinton in the General - both of them. And I don't regret it - Bill Clinton turned out to be a very good president. (Monica Lewinsky escapades notwithstanding)

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The Primary is part of the Election process. ALL Americans should have the right to participate in the election process - no matter what their party affiliation is. In my opinion.

Because it's possible that a non-party voter might be willing to vote for a candidate who is not in his or her Party.

I did this in 1992. I was a registered Republican at the time, and I voted for Bill Clinton in the Primary, and also for Clinton in the General - both of them. And I don't regret it - Bill Clinton turned out to be a very good president. (Monica Lewinsky escapades notwithstanding)

It is also possible, even likely, that outsiders would get organized to select the weakest candidates to sabotage the party's chances to nominate a strong candidate. They have no business influencing the outcome of a party's nominations.

 

[SkyChief]

It is also possible, even likely, that outsiders would get organized to select the weakest candidates to sabotage the party's chances to nominate a strong candidate. They have no business influencing the outcome of a party's nominations.

Your cynicism is delightful.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I think that independents and third party members should be allowed to vote in primaries.

The right to vote is the cornerstone principle of any democracy.

I feel I should be able to vote on the boards of companies in which I do not own stock.

 

[gbg3]

If I were a member of a party in VA, I would be totally against that system. It invites shenanigans...for example, Republicans could flood the Democratic primary and prevent the candidate that the Dems want from getting the nomination and vice versa. I don't see how either party would want your system...unless they want those shenanigans to be an option.

I used to live in a state where, if registered as an Independent, I could choose which ballot to use but could only use one and not both. In fact, I registered as an Independent because of that option.

But I don't like that option anymore. I was living in a blue state and my goal was to vote for the most moderate candidate of the Dem options. This would have been in years where the Republican didn't stand a chance, so voting that ballot would have been a complete waste of a vote. In some seats, there weren't even ANY Republicans running.

My state was quite blue - so the most moderate Dem choice I made, may not have been the person Dems wanted. And on this forum, many a poster talked about actually trying to use it for deliberate shenanigans like you described.

So, I've grown to think a closed primary is the best idea.

 

[maquiscat]

Excellent points.

Thank you.

This is a textbook example of the False Analogy logical fallacy.

A Brit voting in the US presidential election would be ENTIRELY different than American voters participating in the American election process (and Primaries are part of the election process)

Initially I was going to say that it wasn't, but I am realizing that it is not as parallel as I initially thought. How about being a Brit wanting to vote on the US candidate for the leadership position of the UN? Assume for the purpose of the analogy the position exists, if it doesn't in reality. I can't recall the structure of the UN at the moment.

 

[maquiscat]

In my state the primaries are closed, meaning you can only vote for the candidates of your party. But the state also allows the parties to open their primaries to non-affiliated (independent) voters if that party wishes. Typically the Democrats open theirs, the Republicans do not.

That jives with my prediction at the end of the second paragraph

 

[maquiscat]

Too many so called Independents are wackjobs who gave us Trump in 2016 and everything about the march of fascism each and every day since January 2017.

Independents came around again in 2024 to give us Trump again and this time his Heritage fascism too that is now unstoppable. By early 2026 Trump-Heritage fascism will be an all but done deal. There will be no more free and fair elections.

Do you have anything from a non-bias source to back up this assertion? Or is it just an assumption because Trump won?

 

[Xilnik]

When you get right down to fundamentals, political parties are clubs. No person who is not a member of the club should have the right to interject themselves in how that club works or what they do. Any law that allows that interjection is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That also applies to any law that mandates that a political party...a club...must hold primaries.

An interesting stance. I personally prefer how Colorado handles it. I receive ballots from both parties and choose which i want to vote for. I'm only allowed to turn in one of the two.

 

[maquiscat]

The Primary is part of the Election process. ALL Americans should have the right to participate in the election process - no matter what their party affiliation is. In my opinion.

Except that it is not. It is not a required process at all. It is something that was developed by the individual parties (the first one being the Anti-Mason party IIRC) for the selection of their candidate to the general election.

Because it's possible that a non-party voter might be willing to vote for a candidate who is not in his or her Party.

Remember that this is a vote for the candidate for the general election, not for the office itself. However, it is very possible, that while they may prefer the other party candidate over the first's, they would want to vote for who they think is the best person in all parties.

I did this in 1992. I was a registered Republican at the time, and I voted for Bill Clinton in the Primary, and also for Clinton in the General - both of them. And I don't regret it - Bill Clinton turned out to be a very good president. (Monica Lewinsky escapades notwithstanding)

A hell of a lot better than his wife ever would have been.