- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,707
- Reaction score
- 32,367
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
A open primary in that sense I oppose due to the fact the other side can simply vote for a candidate they know does not stand a chance or a candidate that is more in line with their views instead of the party's actual views. For example democrats could vote in a republican primary for a off the wall republican that has no chance of winning in a main election so that their guy wins in a main election. Or republicans can vote a conservative democrat in a democrat primary so that they do not lose regardless of who wins in a main election.
A open primary where everybody runs regardless of party and if none of those candidates got 50% of the vote then the top two - three regardless of party run against each other for the main election.
I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.
I like the concept of being able to vote against somebody. Since that isn't how our elections operate allowing us to vote for both parties candidates gives us that abilityThis just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most).
I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
A statewide primary would be much more difficult in which to pull it off; however, it happened in 2008 in New Hampshire. Romney won among registered Republicans; however, McCain pulled a lot of non-Republican votes and won the Republican nomination. Why should non-Republicans (or Democrats) get to choose the Republican (or Democratic) nominee?
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. .
In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most)
I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
I cocur with Kobie.
An open primary might or seems to work in states like Georgia or Texas but what about states like California that has a large population of stupid people ?
An uneducated elector who are clueless on the issues and even the candidates ?
In Los Angeles County 50% of those of the work force are legally illiterate or functionally illiterate. But they are voting.
These are the same people who voted for having open primaries in California.
No stupid people in Georgia or Texas! No, sir!
If a party wants to have a primary race to select their candidate they can organize and pay for it and run it. The state should have no involvement whatsoever.
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most).
Why should non-Republicans (or Democrats) get to choose the Republican (or Democratic) nominee?
An open primary might or seems to work in states like Georgia or Texas but what about states like California that has a large population of stupid people ?
An uneducated elector who are clueless on the issues and even the candidates ?
In Los Angeles County 50% of those of the work force are legally illiterate or functionally illiterate. But they are voting.
These are the same people who voted for having open primaries in California.
:thinking I voted that the white crayon serves no purpose.
Open Primaries Good or Bad?
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".
What do you think?
Working on poll
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?