• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?


  • Total voters
    58

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?

Open primary | Define Open primary at Dictionary.com

open primary

noun
1.
a direct primary election in which voters need not meet a test of party membership.
Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
24,417
Reaction score
33,342
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If we had a vibrant multi-party system where parties could rise and fall based on their actions and public opinion, I'd agree with you that closed primaries are ok. However, we don't have a multi-party system. We have a system where there are really on two parties and they use their power to keep a stranglehold on the system and prevent other parties from gaining traction. This is further exacerbated by the idiots who say "If you vote 3rd party you're simply throwing your vote away, vote the lesser of two evils."

The fact of the matter is that in most instances the primary is more important than the general. If you're not a Republican or a Democrat in a closed primary state, you have absolutely no say whatsoever in our democracy until the parties present you two and only two candidates. So it needs to be either-or. EITHER we make some serious reforms of our election system to make it more open so that many parties can compete, in which case closed primaries are fine, OR we make the primary completely open and let all Americans take part in our democracy.

tl;dr: "Not a member of the GOP or Dems? Then you don't matter. You'll be presented 2 candidates at the end which you can begrudgingly vote for or **** off." <== This is not how a proper democracy works.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
27,293
Reaction score
15,492
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?


Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.

:applaud:rock
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,898
Reaction score
53,610
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Since all it takes to join a party is your choice then what difference does it make how long before an election that choice must be made? An open primary, such as we have in Texas, simply means that you select your party at the same time that you vote in a primary election.

Assuming that you don't vote only a straight party ticket, it may be advantageous to switch parties occasionally to help get a desirable (or undeisirable) candidate into (or out of) the upcomming general election. Your analogy of votiing in another district/state is invalid because multiple parties exist within the same district/state - just because you are not in the same party as a given challenger (or incumbent) should not prevent you from trying to primary them into (or out of) the general elecction.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?


Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.

The vote should be as restricted as possible, and candidates should represent their base well, so primaries should be closed.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If we had a vibrant multi-party system where parties could rise and fall based on their actions and public opinion, I'd agree with you that closed primaries are ok. However, we don't have a multi-party system. We have a system where there are really on two parties and they use their power to keep a stranglehold on the system and prevent other parties from gaining traction. This is further exacerbated by the idiots who say "If you vote 3rd party you're simply throwing your vote away, vote the lesser of two evils."

The fact of the matter is that in most instances the primary is more important than the general. If you're not a Republican or a Democrat in a closed primary state, you have absolutely no say whatsoever in our democracy until the parties present you two and only two candidates. So it needs to be either-or. EITHER we make some serious reforms of our election system to make it more open so that many parties can compete, in which case closed primaries are fine, OR we make the primary completely open and let all Americans take part in our democracy.

tl;dr: "Not a member of the GOP or Dems? Then you don't matter. You'll be presented 2 candidates at the end which you can begrudgingly vote for or **** off." <== This is not how a proper democracy works.
I agree with much of what you say re the issues that have been not-so-subtly put on us. I completely disagree when you say people not of a party have "absolutely no choice". That is categorically incorrect. They DO have a choice, and they made their choice when they chose to not be party affiliated. I am not party affiliated, and it is by choice. Are there times that I would have liked to vote in a primary? You bet. But, my identity as a true non-affiliated voter outweighs the random contest where I would like to have voted. It's ALL choice.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Since all it takes to join a party is your choice then what difference does it make how long before an election that choice must be made? An open primary, such as we have in Texas, simply means that you select your party at the same time that you vote in a primary election.

Assuming that you don't vote only a straight party ticket, it may be advantageous to switch parties occasionally to help get a desirable (or undeisirable) candidate into (or out of) the upcomming general election. Your analogy of votiing in another district/state is invalid because multiple parties exist within the same district/state - just because you are not in the same party as a given challenger (or incumbent) should not prevent you from trying to primary them into (or out of) the general elecction.
The analogy is perfectly valid. State / district / party, it's all group. Denied.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,821
Reaction score
23,011
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
if you can't take the time to join a party why should you have any say in who that party chooses to be it's representative in the general election?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,898
Reaction score
53,610
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The vote should be as restricted as possible, and candidates should represent their base well, so primaries should be closed.

Candidates of a (different?) party are often incumbents and still should represent your interests. Why should you not be able to try to "primary out'" an incumbent or try to "primary in" a better replacement challenger? What difference does it make when J. Q. Citizen opts into (or out of) a given party?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,898
Reaction score
53,610
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
if you can't take the time to join a party why should you have any say in who that party chooses to be it's representative in the general election?

Why should it "take time" to join (or switch) your party affiliation?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Candidates of a (different?) party are often incumbents and still should represent your interests. Why should you not be able to try to "primary out'" an incumbent or try to "primary in" a better replacement challenger? What difference does it make when J. Q. Citizen opts into (or out of) a given party?

Candidates are supposed to seek the good of all their constituents. Presumably, they have a particular theory of what is good, and they shouldn't be coerced into failing to seek their understanding of the good by the threat of ouster by the masses.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is a lesser factor in my mind, and I cannot read minds so I cannot prove it, but I suspect that most people who cross party lines and vote in another primary are doing so for dishonest reasons. Not to support someone they like, but rather to either support a weak candidate so their party candidate can win in the general election, or to vote against a strong but distasteful candidate.

This point is more for people who identify with a particular party, not so much independents.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?


Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.

I agree for all of the reasons you cite. Furthermore the people that bemoan the lack of choice aren't restricted from registering to a party for a single primary then reverting to independent or to another party. I did it this election and it took maybe ten minutes of my time. I'm not too inclined to feel badly for people who complain about the lack of open primaries and the strangulating nature of our two party system but cant take the time to register to vote in a closed primary. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise but to me it indicates a lack of seriousness, or perhaps ignorance, about the political and electoral process and I'm not eager to help those people vote.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
*IF* we simply must have open primaries, then the parties should be completely removed from the process. No setting rules regarding vote and/or delegate counting, or anything else.

It is clearly no longer the party's people deciding, it's just a bunch of candidates grouped-together according to letter (R or D, etc.), hence it should be run by the state election commission and be neutral and equal for all parties.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?


Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.

I tend to agree.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,898
Reaction score
53,610
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Candidates are supposed to seek the good of all their constituents. Presumably, they have a particular theory of what is good, and they shouldn't be coerced into failing to seek their understanding of the good by the threat of ouster by the masses.

The bolded above represent a distinction without a difference. The argument is simply when not if a given voter can declare/switch party affiliation. I doubt that anyone (even you?) is advocating a given voter not being able to join/switch available political parties.
 

Lovebug

Be humble and kind
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
32,247
Reaction score
17,229
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I agree with you, radcen, as we see enough manipulation during the elections as is. Add to that my ever increasing frustration with our current primaries and lack of selection of candidates for most of us, the super delegate/delegate nonsense..., I am not even sure why we should bother to go out and vote.
Primaries should be closed in every state and be on the same day. Give all people the same choices and let people choose the nominee.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I agree for all of the reasons you cite. Furthermore the people that bemoan the lack of choice aren't restricted from registering to a party for a single primary then reverting to independent or to another party. I did it this election and it took maybe ten minutes of my time. I'm not too inclined to feel badly for people who complain about the lack of open primaries and the strangulating nature of our two party system but cant take the time to register to vote in a closed primary. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise but to me it indicates a lack of seriousness, or perhaps ignorance, about the political and electoral process and I'm not eager to help those people vote.

I tend to agree with this, but I also think it's indicative of another factor that permeates our society overall... lack of personal accountability or responsibility. Sounds counterintuitive given the voting topic, but hear me out. More and more people in our society want to have all the choices of the world laid out at their feet, but they also want zero of the consequences, such as in this case where they might actually have to make a choice and as a result shut themselves out of another choice. People are forgetting exactly what a choice is.
 

Lovebug

Be humble and kind
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
32,247
Reaction score
17,229
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I agree for all of the reasons you cite. Furthermore the people that bemoan the lack of choice aren't restricted from registering to a party for a single primary then reverting to independent or to another party. I did it this election and it took maybe ten minutes of my time. I'm not too inclined to feel badly for people who complain about the lack of open primaries and the strangulating nature of our two party system but cant take the time to register to vote in a closed primary. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise but to me it indicates a lack of seriousness, or perhaps ignorance, about the political and electoral process and I'm not eager to help those people vote.

I am registered independent, so that is on me. Not being able to vote in the primaries is my choice, and I am not moaning about it.
Many people end up voting party lines, regardless of candidate left on the ballot, and those are the votes the establishment counts on. It is, in part, a reason delegates are making the decisions for us. I don't want my vote taken for granted, and I don't play into that nonsense that one party or the other is superior.
Most won't agree with my reasoning, but it is what it is. Call it frustration, call it nonsense, but it is a choice I can live with.
 

FreedomFromAll

Political Parties = Corruption
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
19,003
Reaction score
5,935
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

What's your opinion on the appropriateness of open primaries?


Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.

Bottom line: Primaries should be for the party to decide who it's representative will be in the general election. The party, which is made up of members and others who have chosen to identify with, and affiliate themselves with, said party. People who identify as Dem should have no say in who the Rep general election candidate is (and visa versa). If open primaries are legit, then why can't a citizen of Idaho vote in the Texas Senate race? They can't because it's not legit, and neither are open primaries. A Texas Senator does not represent an Idaho citizen. If the Rep/Dem party does not represent you, then you should accept having no say in the matter. Primaries are about parties, not individual candidates.

People who choose to be independent and/or "no party", as I have chosen for roughly 20 years now, should be held to their choice and should be shut out of any party's primary. I accept the consequences of my choice, and when I weigh the pros and cons of being "no party", losing access to primaries is an acceptable trade-off to me.

And people who consciously choose a specific party especially should not be able to influence another party's selection process. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone can be Party X then somehow expect that they should have a say in Party Y's selection process. How does that thought process work?

Key concept throughout all of this: Choice. Make your choice then live according to your choice. If you change your mind, that's fine, but then change your choice on the registration.

As far as I know it has always been We the People and not We the Political Parties.....

And each person gets one vote right? Well if I give my vote for who I want; that was my liberty was it not? I cannot vote for my guy at the same time as I try and vote in someone like Trump to make that party look bad. Ultimately popular votes are for the candidate not the political party that they are affiliated with. Just about all presidents are poor party members. SO what real difference would it make, really?
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You think it should happen magically at the snap of your fingers?
I am not a fan of same-day voter registration, for either new registrations or party-changes, but that's a lesser issue to me, so it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

Ideally, I believe there should be a cut-off date prior to an election where the rolls are set. Somewhere between 14 to 30 days prior to election day is reasonable.

I think I heard yesterday that New York state's cut-off date is 5 or 6 months prior to election day. (I heard it in passing, and may not have heard it correctly, so don't quote me on that.) If true, then that is completely absurd and unreasonable.
 
Last edited:

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
As far as I know it has always been We the People and not We the Political Parties.....

And each person gets one vote right? Well if I give my vote for who I want; that was my liberty was it not? I cannot vote for my guy at the same time as I try and vote in someone like Trump to make that party look bad. Ultimately popular votes are for the candidate not the political party that they are affiliated with. Just about all presidents are poor party members. SO what real difference would it make, really?
One, you always have the liberty to make your party choice.

Two, what you're really arguing for is complete elimination of political party system altogether. That's what the free-for-all of an open primary is, really. If anyone can vote anywhere at any time, what's the point of even having a party?
 

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
657
Location
Shady Dale, Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Each party should nominate the candidate that they support and only those that are willing to affiliate themselves with that party should have a say in it. Cross party voting in a primary can be a powerful weapon. I used to live in Georgia's 4th. Republicans, including myself, used cross party voting to get rid of an embarrassment to our state. Unfortunately, we wound up having to do it twice. I crossed over and voted for Denise Majette in 2002 and then I crossed over again to vote for Hank Johnson in 2006. It wasn't because we liked Denise or Hank. We knew that whomever won the primary would win the general but we just didn't want Cynthia McKinney to remain in the House.

Was it fair? Heck no, but it was legal.
 
Top Bottom