Question about the 2020 race

[Jim Lane]

My question is about rules and procedures, not a specific candidate, although it’s triggered by some DUers’ animosity toward Bernie Sanders.

A frequently recurring view on DU is that the DNC shouldn’t have let Bernie run in 2016, because he’s not a Democrat, and should bar him in 2020. This seems to assume that there was a DNC vote to allow him, but I never read about anything like that.

It’s my impression that primaries are governed by the states. Each state with a primary has its own laws about ballot access (filing fee, petition signatures, whatever). The DNC doesn’t control those laws.

The DNC could conceivably decide to play hardball: “We demand that every state adopt legislation to exclude from its primary ballot anyone who’s not a registered Democrat. If any state fails to comply, we won’t seat delegates from that state at the 2020 convention.” That would be seen by many as excessive. Furthermore, in Republican-controlled states like Texas or Ohio, the GOP would be delighted to defy this rule. Then, in races up and down the ballot, the Republican candidates would be saying, “The Democratic Party wouldn’t even admit our state’s representatives at their convention.” That would hurt a lot of downticket Democrats.

There’s also a real question about whether, if push came to shove, the DNC would be willing to punish an entire state. Note that, in 2008, Florida and Michigan violated DNC rules about the scheduling of the primary. The DNC ruled that their delegates would not be seated, then it sort of relented and seated them with half a vote each, then it ultimately caved completely and imposed no penalty.

There are some technical questions about how a no-non-Democrats policy could be enforced. What about candidates from states (like, ahem, Vermont) that don’t have partisan registration? What if a group of registered Democrats want to run for delegate slots as “Unpledged” while letting it be known that they like Bernie or some other candidate whom the DNC regards as unclean? How would caucuses, as opposed to primaries, be affected?

The important issue, though, is whether the DNC could actually do what some DUers keep calling for. Frankly, it seems to me that people are vindictively lashing out at Bernie without thinking through what they propose. Am I missing something? I’d be glad to be enlightened about the mechanics of this idea.

[LongTomH]

1. That would be absolutely suicidal!!!!

First, is anyone here noticing that more and more voters have abandoned either party and are registering as independents:



Voters would punish the Democratic party for high-handed tactics like you describe. They might not vote for Republicans; it's getting harder and harder to even stomach candidates from this new GOP; but, they could stay home - which, if you're paying attention, is already happening. Voter turnouts in the U.S. are very low.

[Jim Lane]

2. I agree it would be a bad idea. I'm trying to figure out if it would even be possible. (n/t)

[longship]

3. Many states do not have partisan registration.

Just consider those open primary states. The reason is that there is no partisan registration in those states. If state law forbids partisan registration there is no way that a primary election can be closed. That's why primary elections should all be open.

Level the playing field. Open primaries everywhere! Let everybody vote.

[ehrnst]

5. Primaries are a function of political parties

If one doesn't wish to soil oneself with participation in political parties, then one shouldn't be concerned with primaries.

Yes?

[longship]

9. Nonsense! In Michigan primaries are open because state law forbids partisan registration.

That is the way in all open primary states. If one cannot register as a Democrat (or Republican) there is no way to have a closed primary. And all closed primaries exclude independents.

Let everybody vote in primaries. Open them all up.

[ehrnst]

10. Actually, not nonsense at all.

States determine if they have an open or closed primary.

However, the primaries are a party function that have to follow federal and state election rules.

Primaries serve the purpose of letting parties determine who their candidate is.

Is that clearer?

That said, open primaries allow for other parties to interfere with the selection of a candidate, and could allow Republican Party members to choose the Democratic candidate. That is the main drawback. Opening them up because it might benefit a particular caucasian politician isn't worth the risks to the process, IMHO.

I'm with the Black Congressional Caucus on this. Open primaries have the possible effect of diluting minority votes in primaries.

My understanding is the the Democratic Party acknowledges and acts on issues that disenfranchise minorities, not dismisses them.

[longship]

11. Bullshit!

First, It is impossible to have a closed primary where state law forbids partisan voter registration, like here in Michigan. If one disagrees, I recommend that one suggests a procedure by which a closed primary could be accomplished under such laws. Please... suggest one that does not suppress the vote.

I will stand by my opinion that all primary elections should be open. The reason is that those states without partisan voter registration must have open primaries.

And I have lived in a closed primary state, where voter registration was partisan. In fact I was an officer in the county Democratic Party. The closed primary system did not prevent many people registering with the other party in order to ratfuck the opposition in the primary. So the argument that open primaries allow people to cross over is just so much rubbish. It happens anyway.

Just trying to preempt the usual arguments. My opinion, let everybody vote in primaries.

[ehrnst]

12. You are attacking a couple of strawmen here...

I never stated that all states have closed registration, as you seem to think.

I never stated that votes were suppressed, as you seem to think.

Perhaps reading my posts before calling them Bullshit would help your credibility.

I agree with the Black Congressional Caucus. Perhaps your "Bullshit!" accusation is aimed at them?

[longship]

13. Let me make this simple.

I am for open primaries everywhere mainly because it is impossible to have closed primaries in states without partisan voter registration. Let everybody vote.

That is my position.

[ehrnst]

14. It's good to see you finally addressing what I actually said, instead of rebutting things I didn't.

Wasn't that much simpler?

That said, what do you think is bullshit about the Black Congressional Caucus's stance?

Do you think they are trying to bullshit the public with their support of closed primaries? If so, then why?

[longship]

15. I tried to do that before.

Sorry that my response was too wandering around the topic.

Sometimes one makes it hard on oneself.

My best to you.

[ehrnst]

16. I think that you were attempting to predict what I was going to say

rather than addressing what I actually did say.

How about the questions concerning why the Black Congressional Caucus would proffer "bullshit" concerning their support of closed primaries? Their opinion seems to differ from yours.

As a friend in Georgia told me, "I'm in GA where we don't have partisan registration, and the republicans play rat-fucker when they can with Democratic candidates. That is how they got rid of Cynthia McKinney; republicans came out in droves to vote for her opponent in the primary."

Perhaps Michigan's demographic isn't one where this is such an issue.

[longship]

18. As I wrote above, the so-called ratfucking happens in closed primary states, too.

It's all too easy to simply change ones registration to the other party so one can help skew the opponent party's primary. I've seen such things in action when I was a county party officer. It's simple. Closing the primary doesn't stop the ratfucking. It's slightly more difficult logistically, but it still happens.

[longship]

17. I just think the closed primary only advocates are just plain wrong.

For the reasons I have already stated here.

Mainly: It's impossible to have a closed primary where there is no partisan voter registration, like in several states including mine.

Closed primaries suppress the vote.

Let everybody vote in primaries.

[George II]

6. Not many. From what I can find 32 states allow voters to register by party. Plus, I don't think...

...that all of the remaining 18 states "prohibit" party registration, they just allow registrants to not choose a party (not sure how many though)

Open primaries allow for manipulation of primaries by getting out the opposing party voters to vote in the other primary.

I remember when I was very young my father told me that he changes party before the deadline so he could vote for the person that would be weakest in the other party so his candidate would have an easier time in the general election.

Do you really want a member of the republican party to be involved in choosing the Democratic candidate? What is the logic behind that?

[ehrnst]

7. Yep. I don't recall that registration deadlines

are = to voter suppression.

But if you are new to the process, any requirement at all might seem like "CORRUPTION."

[longship]

8. Think again, then.

I was an officer (treasurer) of a county Democratic Party in a state with partisan registration (Democratic, Republican, or Independent). In primaries, many of my Democratic friends would register as Republican so that they could vote in the GOP primary, in effect ratfucking them, nominating the GOP candidate we could most easily defeat.

So these arguments for closed primaries are childish. The cross party voting happens anyway, regardless whether the primary is open or closed. And what about the independents? Democrats could use those votes, too.

The only solution is to let everybody vote. In Michigan during primaries, you get to select the party's ballot when you arrive at the polls. Everybody gets to vote, no matter what party they have allegiance. As to the cross party voting, it happens anyway, even in closed primary states.

[ehrnst]

4. He would do well to be more transparent about his personal finances and health

Transparency on both is valued in the Democratic party.

He won't do well if he continues to be less than transparent.