Open primaries: Good, bad, ugly?

[Southern Dad]

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.

That wasn't caused by the vote. That was caused by the fact that he is running. When you cast your vote, it's not malleable. That sucker is cast and done. You vote for the candidate you wish and against the others on the ballot.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes. Members (voters) of that party.

Defined by who? I may join a party to alter (help steer?) its position on an issue (or two). Surely you are aware of of flip-flops or "evolving" positions within a given party - how do you suppose that happens?

 

[azgreg]

Defined by who? I may join a party to alter (help steer?) its position on an issue (or two). Surely you are aware of of flip-flops or "evolving" positions within a given party - how do you suppose that happens?

Sure, people change their positions all the time including me. However, that doesn't change the idea that only members of a party should have any say in what happens in that party. If the platform of that party no longer mirrors your beliefs enough for you then you have two choices. You can try to make a change within your party or you can leave the party for one that more closely aligns with your beliefs. Let me try an analogy (which I suck at by the way). I believe you are a fan of gun rights (as am I). Let's say you belong to a local gun club that has approx 150 members. You are getting ready to have your yearly meeting in which you choose board members and make any changes to your by-laws. Using your thought process discussed her (which I respect by the way) you would be ok with 200 anti gun advocates joining your club that day and influencing all your issues.

 

[haymarket]

All primaries should be open to any voter who wants to vote in them. I would even go as far as to say there should be available to every voter the opportunity to vote not only in any party of their choice but also for any office of their choice. If one wants to vote for a candidate for two supervisor that is a Democrat, they should also be able to cast a vote for State Representative who perhaps is a Republican.

That would be the ultimate exercise of the Freedom to Vote.

 

[joG]

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.

If i compare the breadth of contending policies within the two parties with those between the parties in Europe, I do not really see the advantage many strictly regimented parties have compared with freer actors of the two party system. But I admit that in Europe i am biased by closeness to the German party establishment, where there has been a certain improvement in the width of the policy band on offer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sure, people change their positions all the time including me. However, that doesn't change the idea that only members of a party should have any say in what happens in that party. If the platform of that party no longer mirrors your beliefs enough for you then you have two choices. You can try to make a change within your party or you can leave the party for one that more closely aligns with your beliefs. Let me try an analogy (which I suck at by the way). I believe you are a fan of gun rights (as am I). Let's say you belong to a local gun club that has approx 150 members. You are getting ready to have your yearly meeting in which you choose board members and make any changes to your by-laws. Using your thought process discussed her (which I respect by the way) you would be ok with 200 anti gun advocates joining your club that day and influencing all your issues.

How would you propose to prevent that (bolded above)? One private club, which I belong to, prevents that by accepting/denying membership applications (and dues) based on a vote of the board (board members often confer with other club members that may know the "prospect" better).

 

[azgreg]

How would you propose to prevent that (bolded above)? One private club, which I belong to, prevents that by accepting/denying membership applications (and dues) based on a vote of the board (board members often confer with other club members that may know the "prospect" better).

There is a difference. In my analogy (which I admitted I suck at :2razz it's just a single club while there are many parties. However, to answer your question any party can set rules for admittance into the party and you can only belong to one party. Like radcen stated there should be a deadline when you can establish yourself in a party (I propose the beginning of the election cycle as defined by your states election board) and you remain in that party until the end of the election cycle. The only alternative I see is getting rid of parties completely. We have the technology available for popular vote nowadays anyways.

 

[radcen]

There is a difference. In my analogy (which I admitted I suck at :2razz it's just a single club while there are many parties. However, to answer your question any party can set rules for admittance into the party and you can only belong to one party. Like radcen stated there should be a deadline when you can establish yourself in a party (I propose the beginning of the election cycle as defined by your states election board) and you remain in that party until the end of the election cycle. The only alternative I see is getting rid of parties completely. We have the technology available for popular vote nowadays anyways.

If open primaries are allowed, then why even have parties? Seriously.

Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be sad to see that happen (no parties at all), but it's not going to.

 

[clownboy]

All primaries should be open to any voter who wants to vote in them. I would even go as far as to say there should be available to every voter the opportunity to vote not only in any party of their choice but also for any office of their choice. If one wants to vote for a candidate for two supervisor that is a Democrat, they should also be able to cast a vote for State Representative who perhaps is a Republican.

That would be the ultimate exercise of the Freedom to Vote.

I disagree, that is not the ultimate freedom, but the opposite. You already have that choice in the election itself. For the party elections (primaries), only voters who have chosen to belong to said party should have a say. That's an extension of freedom of assembly. You have the freedom to choose which party you wish to belong to, and can change that easily. Open primaries as you are advocating mean the other parties can act as spoilers.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is a difference. In my analogy (which I admitted I suck at :2razz it's just a single club while there are many parties. However, to answer your question any party can set rules for admittance into the party and you can only belong to one party. Like radcen stated there should be a deadline when you can establish yourself in a party (I propose the beginning of the election cycle as defined by your states election board) and you remain in that party until the end of the election cycle. The only alternative I see is getting rid of parties completely. We have the technology available for popular vote nowadays anyways.

Until you know who is running in the current election cycle, and what their policy positions/proposals are, then how could you make an informed decision? That is why the day of the primary election is the perfect date to make that decision.

 

[radcen]

I disagree, that is not the ultimate freedom, but the opposite. You already have that choice in the election itself. For the party elections (primaries), only voters who have chosen to belong to said party should have a say. That's an extension of freedom of assembly. You have the freedom to choose which party you wish to belong to, and can change that easily. Open primaries as you are advocating mean the other parties can act as spoilers.

Yes. Good phrasing.

 

[azgreg]

If open primaries are allowed, then why even have parties? Seriously.

Agree 100%

Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be sad to see that happen (no parties at all), but it's not going to.

I know right? It's come down to a couple of things. When you ask someone what they are more often than not they will say thing like "I'm a pro-choice republican" or "I'm a pro-2nd democrat". Then there are those who will call you a RINO or DINO if you don't follow the platform on every ****ing plank. This is why I'm an independent. I'd rather debate the issues than the platform.

Can you imagine a congress where the members aren't bound by party lines and can make up their minds based on their individual beliefs.

 

[TheGoverness]

I know right? It's come down to a couple of things. When you ask someone what they are more often than not they will say thing like "I'm a pro-choice republican" or "I'm a pro-2nd democrat". Then there are those who will call you a RINO or DINO if you don't follow the platform on every ****ing plank. This is why I'm an independent. I'd rather debate the issues than the platform.

Can you imagine a congress where the members aren't bound by party lines and can make up their minds based on their individual beliefs.

That would be a dream come true.

Politicians driven by their own individual beliefs? That'd be somethin' to see.

 

[azgreg]

Until you know who is running in the current election cycle, and what their policy positions/proposals are, then how could you make an informed decision? That is why the day of the primary election is the perfect date to make that decision.

You should know who's running long before that. There are deadlines to register for those who want to be candidates. If you don't know who's running until election day comes around then you probably belong to the don't give a **** party anyways.

 

[haymarket]

I disagree, that is not the ultimate freedom, but the opposite. You already have that choice in the election itself. For the party elections (primaries), only voters who have chosen to belong to said party should have a say. That's an extension of freedom of assembly. You have the freedom to choose which party you wish to belong to, and can change that easily. Open primaries as you are advocating mean the other parties can act as spoilers.

the freedom to associate is also the freedom to NOT associate. I should not be forced to declare I belong to a party to exercise my right to vote.

 

[azgreg]

That would be a dream come true.

Politicians driven by their own individual beliefs? That'd be somethin' to see.

Yep, a modern day unicorn.

 

[radcen]

the freedom to associate is also the freedom to NOT associate. I should not be forced to declare I belong to a party to exercise my right to vote.

If I register as "no party" then I am saying "That's not my group." If it's not my group, and the purpose of the primary is to choose a representative for said group, then I shouldn't have the ability to influence said choosing. I've weighed the pros and cons of joining or not joining the group, and chosen accordingly. I have fully exercised my right to make my own choice according to what is most important to me.

 

[radcen]

I know right? It's come down to a couple of things. When you ask someone what they are more often than not they will say thing like "I'm a pro-choice republican" or "I'm a pro-2nd democrat". Then there are those who will call you a RINO or DINO if you don't follow the platform on every ****ing plank. This is why I'm an independent. I'd rather debate the issues than the platform.

Can you imagine a congress where the members aren't bound by party lines and can make up their minds based on their individual beliefs.

That would be a dream come true.

Politicians driven by their own individual beliefs? That'd be somethin' to see.

Agreed, but I think people would still gather in like-minded groups, even if secretly and unofficially. Conservatives are still conservative and liberals are still liberal and so on. It's just the tribal mentality in human nature.

ETA: I wonder if truly secret ballots would change the outcome of votes?

I don't really advocate that, as we need to know how our representatives vote, but am just throwing it out there as a curiosity.

 

[radcen]

If we have open primaries, why shouldn't I be able to vote in them all? Why not allow people to vote in the Dem primary, and the Rep primary, and the Libertarian primary, and on down the line? They're all separate elections and they're all in my state/district, aren't they?

 

[clownboy]

the freedom to associate is also the freedom to NOT associate. I should not be forced to declare I belong to a party to exercise my right to vote.

That's right, and open primaries force you to associate with others that don't share your views. Your right to vote is not at all impacted by closed primaries. What does impact you right to vote is not having your vote counted, and that's a fact of life in most states with unbound and super delegates.

 

[Surrealistik]

Open primaries are preferable with the caveat that card carrying members of another party aren't permitted to vote; independents and party faithful only.

This is good for democracy (greater representation), and it's good for the party with the open primary (their candidate is likely to do better in the general as a truer reflection of the people's will), while also helping to minimize sabotage by the political opposition.

That said, if a party wants to weigh faithful votes as much as 2 to 1 vis a vis independents to 'reward' their commitment and give them a greater say over its direction as someone who is more invested in the ideology and goals of the party, I wouldn't be too opposed.

 

[jamesrage]

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. The purpose of a party primary is for parties to pick their representatives in the general election. The purpose of a open primary seems so that a party can rat **** another party's primary by picking the weakest candidate of the opposing party or by picking a candidate that closely matches their views in order to lessen the blow should their party lose the general.

 

[haymarket]

If I register as "no party" then I am saying "That's not my group." If it's not my group, and the purpose of the primary is to choose a representative for said group, then I shouldn't have the ability to influence said choosing. I've weighed the pros and cons of joining or not joining the group, and chosen accordingly. I have fully exercised my right to make my own choice according to what is most important to me.

Which ignores the reality that the choosing of a primary candidate is often the exact same thing as chosing the elected official for the office. And every citizen should have that opportunity to do so without having declare for any private organization like a party.

 

[clownboy]

Which ignores the reality that the choosing of a primary candidate is often the exact same thing as chosing the elected official for the office. And every citizen should have that opportunity to do so without having declare for any private organization like a party.

Yeah, except it's not. That's what the general election is for and there the party registration doesn't matter.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah, except it's not. That's what the general election is for and there the party registration doesn't matter.

I live in a pretty decent upscale bedroom community that has had a Republican administration in charge forever. Because its a township, you have to run on a party designation unlike Michigan cities where you can run nonpartisan. We have a couple of township officials who are opposed by nearly 40% of the GOP voters every four years and our monthly meetings are like hatefests sometimes because of them. But they control the local GOP organization and they win the primary with 60% of the vote. And then in the fall they win again as this is a republican stronghold and the dems are no local competition.

So the only way I can vote against these bozo's and have any real impact is if I vote republican in the primary which means having to give up voting for every other office I want a democrat to have. And that is no choice. And its not right to put a citizen in that position.

And because of partisan gerrymandering, most house seats and senate seats in Michigan are automatic DEM or REP seats so the primary is the election.