Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

[azgreg]

Yes - just like an address (district/state) change.

And that doesn't happen magically at the snap of the fingers either. I guessing that in Texas at the minimum (like here in Arizona) it requires a couple of minutes to fill out a request online. I'm guessing that when I said "take the time" you thought I meant weeks at the least.

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, IMO.

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.

If it were up to me you would become automatically registered as an independent at the age of 18. Then when you decide if you want to be part of a party make your change at that time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And that doesn't happen magically at the snap of the fingers either. I guessing that in Texas at the minimum (like here in Arizona) it requires a couple of minutes to fill out a request online. I'm guessing that when I said "take the time" you thought I meant weeks at the least.



If it were up to me you would become automatically registered as an independent at the age of 18. Then when you decide if you want to be part of a party make your change at that time.

In Texas "at that time" is immediately before casting your primary vote.

 

[Southern Dad]

In Georgia, you are not required to change your party affiliation to vote in the primary. However, if there is a runoff and you cross party vote you will only be able to vote in the party runoff that you voted on in the primary.

 

[shagg]

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 result in nominees that do better in the general. All notions of fairness and representing people aside, if a party wants to put a winner up, they will have a better chance at doing so if they run open primaries. This is why the right is in such a hole. They have a fairly small base that disagrees with everyone not part of the base.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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 problem with open primaries is that it makes it possible to vote for the surest loser for the party you don't like. I agree: Make your choice and live with it. I choose to register Republican so I can vote in that party's primary. That doesn't mean I'll vote for the eventual nominee in the general, but I just might. I vote for (or more generally against) the individual.

This time, I'm voting against Trump in t he primary. In the general, it doesn't matter. I live in the land dominated by San Francisco and Los Angeles, it's a kind of no Republicans land. Romney and Obama didn't even campaign here.

 

[Phys251]

There are pros and cons to open primaries. But they are infinitely better than the scourge known as caucuses.

 

[Phys251]

In Georgia, you are not required to change your party affiliation to vote in the primary. However, if there is a runoff and you cross party vote you will only be able to vote in the party runoff that you voted on in the primary.

Really? How can they even check that on the spot?

 

[azgreg]

In Texas "at that time" is immediately before casting your primary vote.

That's the biggest problem with open primaries. It allows someone from another party to vote against a candidate which undermines the only goal of a primary.

 

[Southern Dad]

Really? How can they even check that on the spot?

Simple when we show up to vote at the polling place, they scan our driver's license (or state ID). In a primary, you choose a Republican or Democrat ballot. (If there were other primaries they would be available, as well.) If I were to choose Democrat then I will be able to vote in the Democrat runoff but not the Republican, and vice versa. If you are wondering how they keep up with it? Technology. The computer knows that I voted Republican in this last primary. Therefore, I can only vote in the Republican runoff.

At a general election you do not have to select Democrat or Republican because they have the same ballot, but in a primary, there are two different ballots.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's the biggest problem with open primaries. It allows someone from another party to vote against a candidate which undermines the only goal of a primary.

There is no such thing as vote against a candidate (unlike a ballot initiative) - you are, however, allowed to vote for an alternative candidate.

 

[Southern Dad]

There is no such thing as vote against a candidate (unlike a ballot initiative) - you are, however, allowed to vote for an alternative candidate.

However, voting for an alternative candidate has the same effect as voting against a candidate.

 

[azgreg]

There is no such thing as vote against a candidate (unlike a ballot initiative) - you are, however, allowed to vote for an alternative candidate.

I guess I wasn't clear. Let's take what happened in Michigan earlier. Many democrats made the assumption that Clinton was going to win in a landslide so they went ahead and voted in the republican primary to vote for Trump who they believe Clinton will have a better chance against in the general. Do you think that's a reasonable use of the primary?

 

[radcen]

I guess I wasn't clear. Let's take what happened in Michigan earlier. Many democrats made the assumption that Clinton was going to win in a landslide so they went ahead and voted in the republican primary to vote for Trump who they believe Clinton will have a better chance against in the general. Do you think that's a reasonable use of the primary?

To me, that is a perfect example of how open primaries bastardizes the process.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

It's the ILLUSION of choice. You're pointing to two private entities who 100% of the time get to decide who our president will be, and remain in power no matter how astronomically low their approval ratings drop. Americans have become more and more disgusted with the two ruling parties, yet they have as much power as they've always had.

Our political system and American mentality as a whole are oriented entirely towards shutting other parties out. There are realistically two and only two parties, and there is no connection whatsoever to their national support/approval and their power. If you don't toe the line with one of these two options, you have zero effect on the election outcome whatsoever. That is not democracy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

However, voting for an alternative candidate has the same effect as voting against a candidate.

Not at all - it may simply force an "evolved" policy position for the other candidate(s). Sanders did not win but he certainly changed Clinton's position on college tuition - the difference between Sanders' "free" college and Clinton's "debt-free" college is semantics.

 

[Paleocon]

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.

The problem is that you think that whatever the masses want is good for them. I don't agree.

I'd support ideological restrictions on party membership.

 

[Lovebug]

It's the ILLUSION of choice. You're pointing to two private entities who 100% of the time get to decide who our president will be, and remain in power no matter how astronomically low their approval ratings drop. Americans have become more and more disgusted with the two ruling parties, yet they have as much power as they've always had.

But why should those 2 entities take my vote for granted? We may have the illusion of choice during the primaries, to some extend we may even think that our choice for nominee may matter, but it is the establishment, the 2 parties, who, regardless of popular vote, will present us with their person to vote for in the general election.

Our political system and American mentality as a whole are oriented entirely towards shutting other parties out. There are realistically two and only two parties, and there is no connection whatsoever to their national support/approval and their power. If you don't toe the line with one of these two options, you have zero effect on the election outcome whatsoever. That is not democracy.

Agreed, and it should change. It won't as long as we are presented with 2 options preselected by the 2 party system.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess I wasn't clear. Let's take what happened in Michigan earlier. Many democrats made the assumption that Clinton was going to win in a landslide so they went ahead and voted in the republican primary to vote for Trump who they believe Clinton will have a better chance against in the general. Do you think that's a reasonable use of the primary?

Yes. If you can alter the "opposition" (or their policy positions) that is a wise use of your voting power. The goal is (should be?) to get your first choice of candidate into office and to get them to govern "correctly".

 

[radcen]

It's the ILLUSION of choice. You're pointing to two private entities who 100% of the time get to decide who our president will be, and remain in power no matter how astronomically low their approval ratings drop. Americans have become more and more disgusted with the two ruling parties, yet they have as much power as they've always had.

Our political system and American mentality as a whole are oriented entirely towards shutting other parties out. There are realistically two and only two parties, and there is no connection whatsoever to their national support/approval and their power. If you don't toe the line with one of these two options, you have zero effect on the election outcome whatsoever. That is not democracy.

No, it's ALL choice (for the purposes of this topic). If you have...

_ Democrat
_ Green
_ Libertarian
_ Republican
_ No Party

...presented to you, it is solely your choice which box to check.

Now, I completely agree that the two big parties have gamed the system to grossly favor themselves, but that's not what this thread topic is about. Which box you check is still your choice.

You are actually reinforcing an earlier point I made regarding people wanting to be artificially shielded from the consequences of their choices.

 

[azgreg]

Yes. If you can alter the "opposition" (or their policy positions) that is a wise use of your voting power. The goal is (should be?) to get your first choice of candidate into office and to get them to govern "correctly".

The goal of a primary should be (and is) for a party to choose it's representative for the general. People who are not members of that party should have zero input on that decision.

 

[Ntharotep]

Political Parties - An Archaic tool used to divide the people
Anything that messes up Political Parties - Good.

 

[radcen]

Yes. If you can alter the "opposition" (or their policy positions) that is a wise use of your voting power. The goal is (should be?) to get your first choice of candidate into office and to get them to govern "correctly".

A primary should be like-minded people getting together and saying, "This is our best candidate.", then having those best candidates face each other in a general election. The best facing the best. Then, theoretically, at least, we get better results. Attempting to game the election by putting a weak candidate out their for another party is a dishonest use of voting power.

If everybody else is doing it then you're pushed into doing it also as a matter of practical reality, but it's still no less dishonest. Hence, it shouldn't even be allowed. We prattle on to other developing countries about free and FAIR elections then we turn around and actively seek to undermine our own process by purposely instituting dishonesty and unfairness.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The goal of a primary should be (and is) for a party to choose it's representative for the general. People who are not members of that party should have zero input on that decision.

If that party is dominant in your state/district then you would be a fool not to try to influence its candidate and position selections. The members (voters) select (and guide) the party - not the other way around.

 

[azgreg]

If that party is dominant in your state/district then you would be a fool not to try to influence its candidate and position selections. The members (voters) select (and guide) the party - not the other way around.

Yes. Members (voters) of that party.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A primary should be like-minded people getting together and saying, "This is our best candidate.", then having those best candidates face each other in a general election. The best facing the best. Then, theoretically, at least, we get better results. Attempting to game the election by putting a weak candidate out their for another party is a dishonest use of voting power.

If everybody else is doing it then you're pushed into doing it also as a matter of practical reality, but it's still no less dishonest. Hence, it shouldn't even be allowed. We prattle on to other developing countries about free and FAIR elections then we turn around and actively seek to undermine our own process by purposely instituting dishonesty and unfairness.

Isn't freedom wonderful? A system where the voter selects any party sure beats a system where the party selects its members.