Allowing independents and third party members to vote in primaries.

[Xilnik]

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.



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.



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

I voted for a Republican in 2024's primary because I preferred that candidate over Trump or Biden/Harris.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.

Since I'm not a member of any political party, I don't think I have the right to vote in any party's primary. Choosing a party's candidate should be done by party members, and not by anybody else.

 

[Xilnik]

I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.

Since I'm not a member of any political party, I don't think I have the right to vote in any party's primary. Choosing a party's candidate should be done by party members, and not by anybody else.

That would defeat the purpose of being Independent in my view, but to each their own.

 

[Mycroft]

That would defeat the purpose of being Independent in my view, but to each their own.

As an independent voter, I am free to vote for whomever I choose in the presidential election...Dem, Rep or other...without betraying an association with a party. I see that as being moral and ethical. I also see it as moral and ethical to NOT vote in any party's primary election.

As you say...to each their own.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Here is the real bottom line, while others hide behind party protections and pretending to understand law, the intention of the idea is to make it easier for a party to conduct a primary entirely based on how "their exclusive club" feels about the lot vying to get the party nod.

If that is what ends up happening so be it, but it empowers Republicans and Democrats to become even more two-faced. Say one thing to achieve the vote from their club, then all of a sudden shift to go obtain votes from everyone else not in the club. Meaning this is not about ethics, morals, or otherwise.

Said another way, this encourages politicians to lie all that more often, to the apparent cheers of club membership.

 

[Perotista]

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?

In Georgia, an open primary state, we just register to vote, no party registration. Which means one can vote in whichever primary one wants to vote in. Independents are allowed to vote in either one, the republican or the democratic primary. But in the primaries, only the hard core, politically active party members tend to vote in their primaries. Most independents, swing voters don’t vote in either major party’s primary. Even with independents, swing voters being able to vote in either primary, only 550,000 voted in the 2024 GOP primary, 290,000 in the democratic primary. A total of 840,000. Compare that to the 5.4 million Georgians who voted in the 2024 presidential election.

I would estimate probably less than 10% of those who voted in the Georgia primaries were independents, swing voters. Even though independents make up 43% of the electorate, they made up only 26% of those who actually voted in the presidential general election.

Even if all states went to an open primary, allowing independents, swing voters to vote, it wouldn’t make a difference. Independents for the most part aren’t interested in primaries. They aren’t all that interested in the general election as only around half of all independents bother to vote in the general. Whereas around 80% of those who affiliate, identify with both major parties will vote in the general election.

 

[Tangmo]

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

The standard post election research data in each instance of 2016 and 2024.

Data readily available and commonly known and referenced that I've been referencing since 2017.

Your being uninformed and unaware is on you to resolve. For example, one can search how did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?

So called independents have been critical to Trump's wins in those election years. They are the voters who have enabled Trump's 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism that is upon the land right now.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

Hmm… does that mean one must financially support a political party in order to vote in their primary election(s)?

 

[maquiscat]

I voted for a Republican in 2024's primary because I preferred that candidate over Trump or Biden/Harris.

And this has what to do with the points I raised? I'm happy that you did so, but it's not relates to my points.

 

[maquiscat]

I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.

Since I'm not a member of any political party, I don't think I have the right to vote in any party's primary. Choosing a party's candidate should be done by party members, and not by anybody else.

I would differ in that if a party is going to allow me vote, despite not being a member, then I will accept the invitation. My overall position is that they should not be required to.

 

[maquiscat]

The standard post election research data in each instance of 2016 and 2024.

Data readily available and commonly known and referenced that I've been referencing since 2017.

Your being uninformed and unaware is on you to resolve. For example, one can search how did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?

So called independents have been critical to Trump's wins in those election years. They are the voters who have enabled Trump's 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism that is upon the land right now.

First, I don't know where.you are getting your information from, so I don't know if it's a biased source or not. Secondly I don't know if you are misreading the data because I don't know what data you are reading. It's your assertion, your obligation to support. If I have a counter then it is up to me to provide the support for the counter. But I don't know if I am supporting or rejecting your assertion, since I don't know the basis of it

 

[VanceMack]

Party affiliation should be mandatory for voting. Similarly, I think any voter that switches affiliation within 6 months of a primary vote ought to be scrutinized. People have every right to vote however they want in a general election. They have no right to attempt to sway the outcome of a parties nomination process.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Party affiliation should be mandatory for voting. Similarly, I think any voter that switches affiliation within 6 months of a primary vote ought to be scrutinized. People have every right to vote however they want in a general election. They have no right to attempt to sway the outcome of a parties nomination process.

That idea amounts to taxation without representation. After all, its not as if political parties pay for the cost of ‘their’ primary elections.

 

[Xilnik]

And this has what to do with the points I raised? I'm happy that you did so, but it's not relates to my points.

I was referring to the following part of what you said. Maybe I misunderstood your context, and I offer my apologies for not being clear.

they would want to vote for who they think is the best person in all parties.

 

[reinaert]

If administered by government, open to all, no exceptions. If not, it's up to the parties

 

[VanceMack]

That idea amounts to taxation without representation. After all, its not as if political parties pay for the cost of ‘their’ primary elections.

Party primaries are PARTY primaries. As such, they have the right to do what they can to protect their primaries from unaffiliated individuals attempts to sway their party candidates.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Party primaries are PARTY primaries.

Who funds them?

As such, they have the right to do what they can to protect their primaries from unaffiliated individuals attempts to sway their party candidates.

 

[VanceMack]

Who funds them?

Does not matter. And frankly I'd be fine if they killed public funding. A primary election is meant to allow a party to select their candidate. You may find it hard to believe, but there are actually corrupt ****s out there that would vote in other party's primary just to try to negatively impact them.

 

[Safiel]

Get rid of primary elections and permit parties to choose their candidates internally. As is done in 99.99% of the world.

 

[LouC]

Allowing independents and third party members to vote in primaries.​

In my considered opinion, unless the Party participating in a Primary Election is footing the bill and conducting the Primary Election themselves I feel anyone that is a legally Registered Elector should be allowed to vote in the Primary for any candidate they choose.

If a State is footing the bill for and providing the bodies to conduct the Primary Election it should be wide open to all comers just as the General Elections are.

If a Party wants to have a closed Primary Election then they should do it on their own and leave the State out of it.

 

[VanceMack]

Get rid of primary elections and permit parties to choose their candidates internally. As is done in 99.99% of the world.

Its pretty much what the democrat party did in 2016 and 2024. Some would say it was less than effective.

 

[Safiel]

Its pretty much what the democrat party did in 2016 and 2024. Some would say it was less than effective.

BOTH parties have done it. Trump did his best to suppress primaries against him in 2020 and 2024. And it has been done at other times.

But primaries should not exist at all, for ANY party. We got some of our best Presidential candidates back in the day in smoke filled rooms.

Without primaries, we would never have gotten President Trump or President Biden at all.

Parties would want to ensure their candidates are "team players" within the party. That would exclude Trump.

Parties would want to ensure their candidates are fit. That would have excluded Biden.

Only in the world of primary elections could either man have made it to the White House, when neither man should have been permitted within a 1,000 miles of the White House.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

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?

I’m for getting rid of political parties altogether. All candidates should run as independents.

That said, if we are stuck with political parties I’m all for everyone being able to participate in primaries.

In our gerrymandered election districts the primary frequently is the election. Whoever gets the nod in that primary for the Reg Org party line of the party the district is stacked in is going to be the winner in November.

So if a district is gerrymandered favoring Republicans (as mine is) only the Republicans get a say in who the winner is in November? I’m an independent registered as a Republican because I want a say. I have to lie about my political affiliation to have a vote?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Does not matter.

Of course it matters, especially when one knows which party’s candidate(s) will very likely win in the general election.

In areas dominated by one party, especially rural areas, voters might cross party lines in the primary to have more of a say in their local races.

“In my county, all the local races are Republican. Judges, sheriff, district attorney,” Martha Mims, a Democratic voter who lives Williamson County, wrote in The Texas Tribune’s Facebook group, This is Your Texas. “If I want to have a say in local government, I have to vote in the Republican primary.”

Texas is an open primary state. Here’s what that means for how Republicans, Democrats and others can vote on Super Tuesday.

Texas is one of 17 states with open primaries, which means regardless of which party voters identify with, they can choose from year to year which party’s nominees they’d like to select in a primary election.

www.texastribune.org

And frankly I'd be fine if they killed public funding. A primary election is meant to allow a party to select their candidate. You may find it hard to believe, but there are actually corrupt ****s out there that would vote in other party's primary just to try to negatively impact them.

 

[pinqy]

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.

And yet such shenanigans don't happen. Would you really give up your vote in the Republican primary in order to try to give the edge to a less popular Dem in their primary?