- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Personally, I do not like them. I believe they should not be allowed.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.
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.
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 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.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.
The analogy is perfectly valid. State / district / party, it's all group. Denied.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 vote should be as restricted as possible, and candidates should represent their base well, so primaries should be closed.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why should it "take time" to join (or switch) your party affiliation?
You think it should happen magically at the snap of your fingers?
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.
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 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.You think it should happen magically at the snap of your fingers?
One, you always have the liberty to make your party choice.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?