Hash tag NO CAUCUSES! Caucuses equal DEMS BASE VOTER SUPPRESSION.

[Madam45for2923]

HERE: https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoCaucuses?src=hash

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Madam45for2923]

1. All About The Base: Why Open Primaries and Caucuses Are a Terrible Idea

SNIP/

And beyond the intimidation factor, caucuses also benefit those who are more affluent, especially White, middle-class families. After all, not everyone can spare four hours on a weekend afternoon, find transportation, find childcare, find their local polling station, and find the energy and effort to sit in a contentious room with your neighbors where you make your politics public for your whole community to see. In addition, many caucuses are one-shot deals. If you happen to be out of town, sick, or without reliable transportation that one single day, then you are unable to participate in your state's primary election. Low-income workers often cannot take time off. Workers who work in tourist areas often cannot take time off. Ahead of Nevada's February caucus, Harry Reid had to fight to allow unionized workers at 6 casinos time off to vote during their shift. Had he not intervened, those workers who have been denied their constitutionally-protected right to vote simply because they were at work.

As bad as caucuses are, open primaries may be even less democratic. Because open primaries allow for ratfucking to the nth degree. By having someone show up on primary day and choose a party, there's no guarantee that this person has noble intentions in mind. He or she can be voting for their chosen candidate or can be voting against a candidate for a party that they are not even a member of.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2017/8/27/all-about-the-base-why-open-primaries-and-caucuses-are-a-terrible-idea

[Madam45for2923]

6. If you need a babysitter to go caucus that means your babysitter is SOL. He or she cannot go.

[Madam45for2923]

8. OPEN PRIMARIES means RATFUCKING

[tonyt53]

29. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mythology]

48. The "logic" in the article is amusing

First there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a primary. But if the author is going to use that as a philosophical base, they can't immediately follow it with an argument for closed primaries because an open primary would let too many people vote.

Also the argument that some people might cross over to vote for the "wrong" reasons is similar to claims about in person voter fraud. It's just simply too difficult to pull off in any useful sense given the number of people you'd have to have cross over to make a difference.

[Madam45for2923]

50. I want to make it easy for our BASE to vote.

[aquamarina]

94. How does a closed primary

make it easier for the base to vote? The base will either vote or they won't - party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

[Madam45for2923]

99. They get to get in and out. Plus some states got early or absentee voting

[aquamarina]

101. I have no idea what you are trying to argue.

I live in Orange County, CA. I have not been affiliated with a political party for many many years. I am also a permanent absentee voter and prior to the primary, I am sent a card from the registrar's office asking me which primary ballot I would like to vote in. I then select the D ballot which then gets sent to me and I am able to vote at my leisure in the privacy of my dining room. Being a member of the D party makes no difference what-so-ever.

[brush]

64. Ahhh...the open primary argument mostly made by non-Dems.

Why the hell should people who are not Democrats vote in Democratic primaries?

Explain pls.

[aquamarina]

96. I am not a member of the Dem

party but I have been voting for Dems in the primaries for decades. Are you really saying you do not want my vote? So much for that Big Tent D's like to claim. Maybe if the Ds worried more about putting forward a good candidate they would not need to worry about who is voting in "their" primary. And NO I am not suggesting Hilary Clinton was not a good candidate because she was.

[brush]

100. The big tent includes left, center and even blue dog democrats. DEMOCRATS.

If you vote for Dems all the time why not join?

I'm definitely against open primaries where anti-Dem ratfucking and skullduggery is easily possible by people working against the party's best interest.

As an independent you've decided that you prefer not to be a part of a party so why on earth should you help decide who the party's candidates are?

If you're that concerned, join the party and actually get out and canvass for your preferred candidate, do voter registration, phone banking, data entry and other activities that us members of the party do?

In other words, put some skin in the game, earn the right to vote in the Democratic primary.

[aquamarina]

102. I prefer not to be a member of a political party.

Back in 2007 I was actually a member of the D party and in fact was a delegate at the CA Convention that year. I met many interesting people, got to sit in on a small round table discussion with Hilary Clinton and Ann Lewis and a bunch of other things. It was fascinating but I had some issues with the way party members got "promoted" within and a few other things and so afterwards I decided that I wanted to be free of party affiliation and I changed to "decline to state" and have been happily so ever since.

[brush]

104. So you didn't want to stay involved and help change what you didn't like?

OK, you made that decision. You're no longer a member of the party.

We welcome your vote in the general election.

[aquamarina]

107. I most definitely did make a decision and fortunately

I am in California and as long as my state allows open primaries, I am welcome and will continue to vote in them.

[lapucelle]

130. "I am in California and as long as my state allows open primaries..."

Your state did not allow open primaries in June of 2016. The parties had the option of holding either a closed or a modified-closed primary election.

It was the Democratic party that elected to open the California primary to "no party preference" voters, not the state Board of Elections.

California state law gives political parties the right to determine whether that party's primaries are closed or modified-closed.

The Republican Party opted for a closed primary.

The Democratic Party opted for a primary that was open to registered Democrats as well as to non-affiliated (independent/no party preference) voters. This is known as a modified-closed primary. Don't thank your state officials; thank the Democratic Party.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california/

[aquamarina]

132. Yes, you are correct and I mis-spoke in my statement

I meant to say that the California Democratic Party allows for open primaries. So clearly, the California Democratic Party believes there is value to holding open elections. And I think the results speak for themselves.

[lapucelle]

136. It was not an open primary.

The primary was closed to members of other parties. What is interesting is that The Democratic Party CHOSE to make the primary as "open" as California state law allows.

[aquamarina]

139. The OP asks whether or not

Democratic Primaries should only be open to registered members of the Democratic Party. My argument is that it is more beneficial for the Democratic Party have open primary elections. I am a "decline to state" voter in California and every election cycle the Orange County Registrar of Voters sends me a card asking what ballot I would like to vote on. I select the Democratic Party Ballot. I don't really care what you call it open, semi-open, whatever. The bottom line is that the California Democratic Party has decided that it is beneficial for them to allow non members vote in their primaries and as such I will continue to vote in them.

[lapucelle]

143. I'm a long time party member and volunteer.

I prefer closed primaries at this point because Republicans actively mess with our process through crossover strategies. Nothing is sacred to the Roger Stones of the world, least of all our elections.

[aquamarina]

146. I guess everyone has their own strategy.

I live in Orange County, CA - a normally pretty republican county. Hillary Clinton not only handily won the primary but she also beat Trump in the general. I would bet that a number of us decline-to-state helped put her over the top. Now if only we can get rid of Dana Rorhbacher...

[romana]

129. But

If you don't want to be a member of a political party, why do you feel you get a say in who that party then nominates? I don't understand that reasoning. You basically want the privileges of membership without having to be a member. How does that even make any sense?

[aquamarina]

131. Well I would ask,

why is membership even required? Why do political issues that affect you or me at very personal levels require a membership of any kind? I think the whole idea of political parties is counter-productive. If someone wants to act as my representative on issues that affect me then I want a say - as is my right. Why should I not be able to cast my vote against someone who wants to take away women's reproductive choices or for someone who want to expand access to healthcare or stop cuts to Social Security or institute a new tax scheme. Political party or not, those issues affect me and I should get a say. And again, California and the California Democratic Party appear to recognize that logic and welcome my vote in their primaries.

[fallout87]

152. I agree with you

I've been a registered dem for over 12 years. And I personally welcome your vote and thank you for it. This is America after all, land of the free. Register or don't... your choice.

[aquamarina]

154. Thank you and I agree.

If people want to affiliate with a party that is their choice. My first election was in 1982 and truth be told my political beliefs have shuffled a bit since then. Life and experience does that. I can't stand the polarization between the two major parties. And I can't stand the internal vitriol that occurred on this site during the 2008 and last year's primaries. It was so over the top and pretty self-destructive in my opinion. A confident party is not afraid of new ideas and challenging the status quo and welcoming to non-members. When you have to resort to purity tests and loyalty oaths it screams out fear and insecurity. And to go on record regarding the OP, I like open primaries. I do not like caucuses. And I do not like super delegates. And on another note entirely, I think they need to either do away with the electoral college or increase the representative to electoral vote ratio. Why does Wyoming get one electoral vote for every 177,550 people but California only gets one electoral vote for every 508,300.

[fallout87]

155. And my personal favorite:

If you're not with us, start your own party. Well, as a democrat, we learned in 2016 that we need independents and non-affilliated votes to win..

[brush]

61. Thanks for breaking this all down. Good post.

[question everything]

76. Or, in cold states, a cold winter night, with possible icy roads

and, of course, police, emergency and hospital workers cannot attend.

[LisaM]

106. The timing of the caucuses in Washington state clearly favors college students.

Last edited Wed Aug 30, 2017, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)

They don't give much of a chance to participate absentee, either (there used to be no provision, now there are a few, but it's quite restrictive).

The best example I can give of this was in 2008, when Hillary Clinton met with nurses, did a town hall with them, but any nurse who worked on Saturday could not vote for her in the caucus (and it's to her great credit, I think, that she didn't let that affect their meeting with her).

I heard so many stories of intimidation this year, including people keeping them going till 11:00 pm, that I was even more turned off than before and that's saying a lot. Worse, even though Sanders won the caucus here (and lost the primary held a few weeks later that didn't count, but still attracted more than double the participation) his supporters still won't let the "the DNC rigged the primary" narrative go. I saw someone saying this as recently as yesterday, but it's just not worth the battle to respond anymore.

[fallout87]

153. There has

to be a way to bridge the divide here. Make them feel welcome and give them some sort of acknowledgement that their candidate should have had more of a fair shake in the primaries. We need to fix the divide that exists here if we want any hope in 2018 and 2020.

[LisaM]

156. How about they try to bridge the divide?

Hillary got 3 million more votes than one candidate and 4 million more than another and gets charged with rigging it on both counts, and is still constantly being asked to apologize for running at all, I guess. No more!!!

[riversedge]

2. closed primaries would be best. imho.

[Madam45for2923]

3. Absolutely. Only DEMS choosing the DEM candidate. Wanna vote? You are free to REGISTER

[tonyt53]

31. Why is it so hard for some people to comprehend this?

[NurseJackie]

4. Yes please! Closed primaries. NO caucuses. And...

... free dictionaries for all those who falsely claim they are being "disenfranchised" by having to actually REGISTER to vote and to DECLARE a party affiliation.

[Madam45for2923]

5. They have free time to go to a caucus but not to register! LOL!

[NotASurfer]

7. But keep the superdelegates? n/t

[Madam45for2923]

9. Many of us like them! Deal!

[NotASurfer]

23. Because..?

Somebody who thinks we should keep caucuses could use the same "because many of us like them" reasoning to support keeping caucuses.

I'm with you on this. Sometimes, I can't stop myself from playing Devil's advocate to see if there's not a more persuasive way to make the case.

[NurseJackie]

17. Yes. This, too. Thank you!

[Wounded Bear]

39. I'm actually down with that...

Perhaps we could lessen their number and influence, but mostly I think they should not be allowed to publicly declare until at least the primary in their state occurs.

[uponit7771]

51. absolutely !!! Especially after Red Don ... why is this even a question? thx in advance

[brush]

66. That's an easy one. If the repugs had had superdelegates, they wouldn't have avoided trump...

and saved the country the disaster of an admin we have now.

[FSogol]

10. Good, but not every state reguires you to register as a member of a political party.

Here in VA, I can vote either in the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both. Closed primaries cannot be universally applied.

[aquamarina]

98. In California

R's have closed primaries and see how well that has worked for them. D's, on the other hand, have open primaries and look who is running the government in this state.

[aikoaiko]

11. I'm OK with no caucuses, but fuck superdelegates and I prefer open primaries.

I agree that caucuses are an obsolete process and not democratic enough.

Superdelegates are an abomination to democracy. They get to vote in their home states' primaries like everyone else.

If we want buy-in from left-leaning independents (who number the same as registered Democrats) then we need to allow them a say in the candidate selection process with open primaries. The "join or fuck-off" mentality is counter productive.

[Madam45for2923]

13. OPEN PRIMARIES means RATFUCKING from NON DEM FRIENDS . No thank you

[aikoaiko]

15. There aren't enough rat fuckers to warrant disenfranchising genuine left-leaning independents.

Closed primaries silence allies.

[Madam45for2923]

16. Disenfranchising my arse! LOL! Register Register Register.

aikoaiko
15. There aren't enough rat fuckers to warrant disenfranchising genuine left-leaning independents.

Closed primaries silence allies.

[aikoaiko]

28. No need to Register Register Register as a Democrat with open primaries.

[Madam45for2923]

41. We disagree.

[brush]

73. The point is Democrats voting in Democratic primaries. Not ratfuckers try to influence our...

candidate selections.

If people want to vote for a Dem, register as a Dem or wait for the general election to vote for a Dem.

Open primaries and caucuses gave us the divisiveness we experienced in 2016, and now we have trump.

[aikoaiko]

126. "Open primaries and caucuses gave us the divisiveness we experienced in 2016"

I don't think open primaries or caucuses were the cause of divisiveness. I think there was and is a division in what people wanted.

[brush]

149. Short memory? The caucuses that Sanders won were a point of divisiveness. They were...

Last edited Wed Aug 30, 2017, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

much discussed here as being suppressive of working peoples votes and parents votes with no childcare who can't spend 4-5 hours at a caucus. Most agreed that caucus are an archaic, outdated form of voting rooted in small towns but not suited to today's fast-paced, busy world. They benefit those who can take off for hours from work and those who don't have to work.

Primaries are much preferred as people can take the 15 minutes it takes to vote in primaries after work or even before work, maybe even during lunch hour.

Open primaries OTOH just open the party up to skullduggery by allowing people who may not have the best interests of the Democratic party participation in our candidate selection.

Who wants that? Not allowing that is a no-brainer.

[aikoaiko]

150. We're bordering on refighting the primary so I'll back off.

But I will say that I agree caucuses are obsolete, but I don't think caucuses or open primaries caused the divisiveness.

[tonyt53]

33. Yes they do!

[NurseJackie]

19. LOL! That's not what "disenfranchising" means. The price one pays for the vanity of...

... declaring themselves "Independent" is that they don't get to participate in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S BUSINESS of choosing nominees.

That's NOT "disenfranchising" anyone!

If anyone is truly interested in participating in the selection process for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, then they can damn well take 2 whole seconds to check-off the little box that says "Democrat" when registering to vote.

Jesus!

[aikoaiko]

27. Disenfranchisement doesn't have to be absolute to be disenfranchising.

Because if disenfranchisement does have to be absolute, then you're making the case that Voter ID laws are not disenfranchising. Or maybe you do think that.

I don't want to exclude left-leaning independents who are allies but don't want to join the party.

I don't fear the independent voter and welcome them to our primaries.

[NurseJackie]

52. Oh, stop it! As it applies to THIS topic, there is NO "disenfranchisement" going on when...

... the Democratic Party decides how PARTY BUSINESS is going to be conducted and who qualifies to participate.

Because if disenfranchisement does have to be absolute, then you're making the case that Voter ID laws are not disenfranchising. Or maybe you do think that.

Oh, puh-lease! Save it. That's hair splitting, off topic and a conversation for another thread.

I don't want to exclude left-leaning independents who are allies but don't want to join the party.

Well, join your state's party and work your way up the ranks and change it.

I don't fear the independent voter and welcome them to our primaries.

Okay. So?

If the "independent voter" cares enough about who the party's nominee will be, then s/he can play by the party rules and declare their affiliation. It's not hard to do. Just a small effort on their part is the ONLY thing the Democratic Party asks.

Is that too much to ask?

[Blue_true]

142. Exactly. nt

[brush]

75. If they're allies let them vote Dem in the general. Democrats should pick Democratic candidates.

[aikoaiko]

110. We could do that but we run the risk of alienating our allies

We can push our allies away by choosing badly from their perspectives

[brush]

117. Versus allowing our non-allies to pull dirty tricks in voting in our primaries?

Nah, I say stick with closed primaries.

[aikoaiko]

125. I don't think requiring D membership is going to stop dirty tricks in primaries.

[tonyt53]

36. Thank you for saying this!

[LanternWaste]

53. I especially liked how you supported your premise with objective, peer-reviewed analysis

I especially liked how you supported your premise with objective, peer-reviewed numbers processed through rational analysis rather than just making simplistic allegations with no more depth nor accuracy than a fortune cookie.

[NewJeffCT]

70. wasn't there a recent survey

that said that 12% of Sanders voters ended up voting for Trump? How many of those were actual left-leaning Sanders supporters and how many were Republican/Trump supporters looking to cause chaos on the Democratic side? I'm guessing a large number wanted to cause chaos.

(That said, I think even more Clinton primary voters supposedly voted for McCain in 2008. Remember Rush and his huge audience of Right Wing dillwads? He had operation chaos in 2008...)

[FourScore]

91. I think neither choice is right.

I believe they were Republicans who did not want Trump nor Hillary, but liked what Bernie had to say. I knew a quite a few Republicans who actually liked much (not all) of Bernie's message - some even voted for him in the primary (or wanted to vote for him but couldn't due to closed primaries). When Bernie did not win the nomination, they went back to their own party. It is fascinating to me how this demographic is seen as villainous. Why is it that Hillary supporters refuse to see it for what it most likely was? They liked Bernie's message.

[NewJeffCT]

108. I said many of those 12%

not all - were Republicans who were looking to cause chaos in the Democratic process. If they didn't like Hillary or Trump, why vote Trump in the general then? Why not Stein or Johnson? Or, write-in Bernie? It seems like a lot of Bernie supporters are ignoring the fact that at least some of his votes were from Republicans in open primaries looking to cause disruption in the nomination process.

(I did not support anybody in the primaries, by the way, but also realized that after the first Super Tuesday, Sanders was essentially mathematically eliminated barring an epic collapse or that "any day now" indictment of Clinton promoted by HA Goodman and others)

[aikoaiko]

127. Yes, but its possible that none of them were ratfuckers.

I'm sure some were, but there were conservatives who genuinely liked Bernie as an outsider. I think they ended up voting for Trump for similar reasons and he wasn't HRC.

[brer cat]

121. I'd love to see your source for that "fact."

So would Cynthia McKinney who was defeated in an open primary when republicans flocked to vote against her.

[aikoaiko]

128. I'm not saying it can't happen in a small district in the south,

But McKinney was controversial to many people even in her district after 9/11. She was defeated by a more moderator Dem and then came back.

You can't keep a good woman down with ratfuckers.

[Blue_true]

141. If you are left leaning, register Dem.

You still can vote for the most liberal candidate in the primary. Your argument is flawed, nothing personal.

[brush]

69. Nah, you get right-leaning independents and ratfuckers with open primaries...

voting against the best interests of the Democratic Party.

As far as super delegates, the repugs are wishing right now that they had had super delegates in 2016.

They and the rest of the country would not be embarrassed, humiliated and hating this disaster of an admin we have now.

trump would have been outmaneuvered and out long before their convention.

[aquamarina]

93. I agree completely with your points.

[Blue_true]

140. What is wrong with declaring a party when you register?

If you are left leaning and register Democrat, you get a voice, if not, get lost. Open primaries allow ratfucking and can defeat the will of true Democrats.

[aikoaiko]

144. I suppose I shouldn't expect fierce Democratic party loyalists to understand the ambivalence

some people on the left feel about the Democratic party, but I think the "join or fuck off" philosophy will push more people away than sway to join.

And let's remember that registration is no defense to organized ratfucking or crossover voting.

Obviously, we disagree, but that's ok. I live in an open primary state.

[Blue_true]

145. If you don't like the rules, create your own party.

I am a Democrat because the core values of the party appeal to me.

[aikoaiko]

147. Or we can be inclusive and allow open primaries.

I am a Democrat because the core values of the party appeal to me.

[Blue_true]

148. I disagree. True Democrats should choose the party nominee.

If you don't like that, you can start your own party.

[phleshdef]

12. I'm fine with getting rid of caucuses but closed primaries are a terribly short sighted idea

Open primaries are one of the best tools we have for getting young people engaged in the party.

[Madam45for2923]

14. Closed Primary means REGISTER! Oh no! The calamity!

[phleshdef]

20. You have to register in an open primary too.

Open primaries means you don't have to have a party affiliation on the books to vote in that party's primary

[Pope George Ringo II]

68. I actually use open primaries to vote in the Republican primary

I'm in a part of Texas where Democrats usually don't bother to waste money and effort in a losing cause. I went in and voted against every incumbent I could because the Republican primary is the actual election here. Also, I absolutely despise my local GOP Representative (Kevin Brady) and I'm not passing up my one chance to vote against that unethical SOB in particular.

I didn't vote straight-ticket Democrat in the last general, either. I voted for every Democrat on the ballot, and then went looking for Libertarians because there were more of them running than Democrats and I just wanted to stick it to the Republicans. It's a little red around here.

And caucuses are in the top five for dumbest ideas in American democracy.

[NewJeffCT]

72. I think a lot more RWers cross over to vote Democrat

than vice versa, though. Look at the recent survey that had 12% of Sanders primary voters voting for Trump in the general - I'm guessing many, if not most, just wanted to cause trouble for Clinton and were always going to vote for the (R) candidate in the end.

[Pope George Ringo II]

87. Probably true.

But I wanted to point out it's not 100% one way. Heck, if I can't vote against Republican incumbents in their primary, I can't vote against them at all as often as not.

[Orrex]

18. I have never read a convincing argument in favor of open primaries

The closest I've seen--on DU or elsewhere--is "I should get to vote for whoever I want."

Absolutely you should, and no one is stopping you from voting for whoever you want. But the parties are not under any obligation to field the candidate that you want, and if you don't register with the party, then there's no reason why you should have any say in the party's choice of candidate.

[phleshdef]

21. Open primaries are a very effective party recruiting tool

If expanding the party, especially college age voters, isn't convincing to you, then I question your opinion on how to best grow the Democratic party

[Madam45for2923]

24. Suuuuuuure! I prefer registering as part of recruiting! - nice try.

phleshdef
21. Open primaries are a very effective party recruiting tool

If expanding the party, especially college age voters, isn't convincing to you, then I question your opinion on how to best grow the Democratic party

[phleshdef]

57. You keep repeating the lie that you don't have to register to vote

[Madam45for2923]

59. You mean people that register on the way in & change their registration on the way out. NO THANKS

[phleshdef]

60. Thats some mythical bullshit you are bathing yourself in there

The Obama coalition was built largely on Obama tapping into independents during the open primaries in 2008. Guess who is an elected 2 term President with large EC wins?

I'll go with the strategy that gave us a President instead of your puritanical obsession with party registration that does nothing more than alienate potential future Democrats.

Its a good thing people who think the way you do aren't calling the shots. Open primaries will continue to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Madam45for2923]

63. "Bullshit"and "Puritanical"" Obsession" too? woah! LOL!

YOU DEM PRESIDENT WELL MEANING DEM FRIEND YOU!!

phleshdef
60. Thats some mythical bullshit you are bathing yourself in there

The Obama coalition was built largely on Obama tapping into independents during the open primaries in 2008. Guess who is an elected 2 term President with large EC wins?

I'll go with the strategy that gave us a President instead of your puritanical obsession with party registration that does nothing more than alienate potential future Democrats.

Its a good thing people who think the way you do aren't calling the shots. Open primaries will continue to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.

[phleshdef]

67. Bolding my posts and using a lot of caps doesn't strengthen your argument in the slightest.

In fact it shows that you really have no argument.

[Madam45for2923]

79. Nah I was just impressed with your tactics. Reminded me of a wonderful year called 2016

I even gave you a hat-tipping emoji. Called you Sincere DEM friend you!


phleshdef
67. Bolding my posts and using a lot of caps doesn't strengthen your argument in the slightest.

In fact it shows that you really have no argument.


phleshdef
60. Thats some mythical bullshit you are bathing yourself in there

The Obama coalition was built largely on Obama tapping into independents during the open primaries in 2008. Guess who is an elected 2 term President with large EC wins?

I'll go with the strategy that gave us a President instead of your puritanical obsession with party registration that does nothing more than alienate potential future Democrats.

Its a good thing people who think the way you do aren't calling the shots. Open primaries will continue to exist and there is nothing you can do about it.

[phleshdef]

80. I don't have "tactics". I have insight. You should give it a spin sometime.

[Madam45for2923]

85. Yep that's the word for it! In sight full. I see you- sincere DEM you

Starting to think you don't appreciate hat-tips.

phleshdef
80. I don't have "tactics". I have insight. You should give it a spin sometime.

[phleshdef]

113. Insight, no space.

[Orrex]

26. I reject that fairy tale entirely

By all means, allow same-day registration, and recruit voters right up to and including primary day. No problem.

But if you aren't in the party, there is absolutely no reason why you should get any say in who they nominate.

[phleshdef]

58. I reject your rejection as it isn't born out by any facts

However there is a wealth of data that indicates that open primaries help grow the party in a significant way. You are wrong.

[Orrex]

62. Your fairy tale is short hand for "abolish primaries altogether"

If anyone can vote for anyone on day one, then you might as well skip the primaries and go straight to the general.

[phleshdef]

65. Your fairy tale is "lets rely on a base of 31% of Americans" to win elections.

The Obama coalition of 2008, built strongly on crossover independents who were engaged during the primaries, got us a 2 term President with large EC victories. Your fairy tale is a recipe for failure. I'm glad you aren't calling the shots.

[Orrex]

83. Of course, that is absolutely not my view

My view is this: let the parties pick their nominees. You have presented no convincing argument to refute this.

I am in favor of same-day registration, so by all means allow these famously beloved and semi-mythical "independents" to register as Democrats on their way to the primary booth. But if they don't register, then the party's choice of candidate is none of their business.

[phleshdef]

112. My argument is very convincing for those that actually understand Obama's 2008 victory. You do not.

I don't need to convince you of anything. You lack the authority and foresight on the subject to be worthy of any effort to convince you.

[Orrex]

114. Well, I'll give you this much:

Convincing? Probably, to yourself.

Condescending? Absolutely.

[phleshdef]

115. I condescend to those who deserve to be condescended to.

[Orrex]

116. Golly!

And you deserve to be recognized as something that would put me in violation of the TOS.

[FSogol]

46. My state (VA) doesn't have a mechanism for registering with a party.

You are either registered to vote or not. All the primaries here are open.

[Orrex]

54. Yeah, I recall that from the past primary season

Around the time that Bernie Bros were howling about New York's unfair rules re: party registration.

All of that notwithstanding, I still see no valid argument in favor of open primaries over party-specific primaries.

[FSogol]

81. I wouldn't mind a open primary, but changing the Commonwealth's election law is much

more difficult than a party's rule change. In the current political climate, it is impossible to change. I suspect that would be the same in a number of states.

[Orrex]

84. Yeah, that's a good point

And of course you're correct that the law overrules the party's policies.

The only way that we can be certain that the law would change would be for Republicans to identify some GOP advantage in changing it.

[FSogol]

88. In VA, the GOP is deathly afraid liberals will vote in their primaries.

They've tried loyalty oaths ("I swear by the Bye-ball, I'm a member of the Gee-Oh-Pee&quot and affidavits that you won't vote in another caucus/primary even though the election official will only give you one ballot.



The Democrats used to switch from caucus to primary depending on how they could help the incumbent, but seemed to have settled on primaries. The caucus process really blows.

[UTUSN]

22. *NO* caucuses, ABSOLUTELY!1 They are a drag on the process, are indeed SUPPRESSION

Most people have their work schedule and other parts of their lives to be about and to worry about, and I've felt and seen how the enthusiasm and JOY of going out to vote for somebody are DEADENED down with yak-fests of extroverts who are running for their own desired local positions or for slots to go to the county/state/national conventions. And it's b.s. that anybody should have to "justify" their voting or convince or be convinced. All I want to do is VOTE. And why should anybody have to declare things to a group of close neighbors, perhaps co-workers/boss. NO!1

Caucuses were a BAD byproduct of the McGOVERN purists. Before flaming happens to this post, idealism is a *major* component of being a Democratic partisan, and I *am* idealistic, and I have supported ALL Dem candidates/nominees from ALL wings of the party. I guess I could avoid a problem by just sticking to "caucuses are BAD" without taking it to bringing up the "purist" thing. But I didn't. So be it.

[Expecting Rain]

25. Yes, end cacuses and limit primaries to registered Democrats.

Caucuses are anti-democratic and disenfranchise the base while rewarding activist extremists.

Democratic primaries should be for Democrats only. Simple.

[Madam45for2923]

32. Yep! I find it suspect people saying otherwise. WTF that about.

We say caucuses hurt the base - they don't care!
We say open primaries open DEMS to ratfucking- they don't care!



Expecting Rain
25. Yes, end cacuses and limit primaries to registered Democrats.

Caucuses are anti-democratic and disenfranchise the base while rewarding activist extremists.

Democratic primaries should be for Democrats only. Simple.

[yallerdawg]

30. This is called "learnin'!"

[Madam45for2923]

35. ??? Say more...

[yallerdawg]

44. Our loss in the 2016 presidential election started in the primary.

That is the lesson we need to learn.

I have no problem with "Democrats for Democrats!"

[Madam45for2923]

47. Yep! Lesson learned!

yallerdawg
44. Our loss in the 2016 presidential election started in the primary.

That is the lesson we need to learn.

I have no problem with "Democrats for Democrats!"

[Freddie]

34. Open Primary Operation Chaos

Or at least huge potential for shenanigans by the other side. Yes they could change registration to do this but it's a PITA to do so, why make it easy?

[Madam45for2923]

38. Makes sense. Wondering why some people don't seem to care about that.

Freddie
34. Open Primary Operation Chaos

Or at least huge potential for shenanigans by the other side. Yes they could change registration to do this but it's a PITA to do so, why make it easy?

[NewJeffCT]

74. Thank you for remembering this

Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos generated a lot of (R) voters voting in Democratic primaries to cause chaos in both 2008 and 2016. Mission accomplished in 2016!

[yellowcanine]

37. Caucuses had a lot to do with Obama winning the nomination in 2008.

So there is that.

[TacoD]

43. I caucused for Obama in 08 and Sanders in 16. Both benefited from the caucus system. Yet I still

want to get rid of it. No one should be excluded from the democratic process simply because they are unable to meet for several hours at a specific place, date and time.

[TacoD]

40. End caucuses, end superdelegates, allow same-day registration.

Closed primaries OK with same-day registration/party declaration.

[brush]

77. Agreed on all but ending super delegates. If the repugs had had super delegates...

trump would have been bumped before their convention.

[samnsara]

42. i used to defend out states caucuses. I loved them..so grassroots...but after last year...

..when I couldn't attend and I heard some of our older participants were bullied into casting their vote a certain way I have to agree now that they are outdated and subject to abusive behavior by those not interested in our country... but only about THEIR ideals.

[still_one]

45. While I agree with the OP, I think it will be difficult to achieve, since states choose how they

handle their voting, and I suspect some states will be adverse to change

[Madam45for2923]

49. Yes, but important to let it known that caucuses are suppressing our base voters who work, etc

[still_one]

82. No doubt about it. It discriminates against people who are not mobile or who cannot get to the

caucus place. As far as I am aware there is no absentee voting mechanism for a caucus. It an old archaic system which should have been gotten rid of decades ago. I believe it also violates a person's privacy of a secret ballot, since from my understanding, most people there are well aware of who is voting for who.

Open primaries are insane. They violate a political party's right to choose the candidate to represent their party, by allow non-Democrats to vote in their primary.

Just insane

[geek tragedy]

86. and adverse to paying for it nt

[still_one]

92. Another reason why those states may be adverse to it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. I agree that caucuses make it difficult for many people to participate.

But Minnesota has used them for years and managed to stay reliably Democratic so I'm not convinced they result in suppression of the Dem vote, and in all the years I've gone to them I've never seen or heard of instances of "intimidation, bullying and harassment." However, in response to complaints that people can't always attend (they are held in the evening, not during the day, but that's still a problem), the legislature has voted to go to a primary system as of 2020. That's just fine with me; I didn't care for the caucuses because of the crowds and having to wait in line just to get in. But in MN you don't designate a party when you register, so I have to assume these will not be closed primaries.

[procon]

56. Locking out all the Independent voters in closed primaries would backfire.

The reasons vary, but like many people, I'm an Independent voter. Calif has an open primary and I still vote for Dems like many others. Many people are Independent voters, but most opt for Dem or R party candidates. Why would anyone want to join a party that clocks them from voting for those very candidates?

Banning Independent voters, or any other crossover voters, would hurt Democrats and limit the choices of good candidates vying for a convention win.

[Adrahil]

90. This is pretty simple, really.....

Anyone who wants to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is is welcome to join the party, and I'm okay with same-day registration.

If one doesn't care enough to join the party, I do not see why they should have a say in what our party does.

[aquamarina]

109. No,not really.

I can only speak for California (and other states may be different) but this is the voter breakdown by numbers here. And as you can see more than 20% of the voting population is unaffiliated in this state so if I was one of the major parties in California I would be damned interested in what the 20.9% of the voting population is interested in. This is a huge swing that more than bridges the difference between Rs and Ds.

Entire state
Total population 36,969,200
Registered voters 18,055,783 48.8%
Democratic 7,932,373 43.9%
Republican 5,225,675 28.9%
No party preference 3,766,457 20.9%

Independent 476,157 2.6%
Green 112,973 0.6%
Libertarian 109,636 0.6%
Peace and Freedom 61,612 0.3%
Americans Elect 3,417 0.0%
Other 367,483 2.0%

[Adrahil]

119. That is a different question....

Being interested in that their concerns are is one thing. But should their interests have equal weight to party members? I mean, why should I even be part of the party if non-party members have the influence on party choices that I do?

The point of parties is for like-minded people to join together and multiply their power. So while I am interested in persuading independents, I don't want them deciding what my party does for me unless they care enough to commit to it.

[aquamarina]

120. Well I think it is a big problem that only two political parties

get to call all the shots on how this country operates. So on the one hand you have the Rs, who I think we all agree are batshit crazy so that just leaves the Ds. Fortunately I agree with the Ds most of the time and am quite content to give them my vote. However, there are some issues I do not agree with. That being said I absolutely want the ability to vote against the batshit R party and sometimes voting defensively against an opposition party is just as important as voting affirmatively for the party you agree with. And again, I am just happy that the California Democratic Party agrees with me and welcomes me to vote in their primaries.

[Adrahil]

122. So you refuse to join the party...

.. because you dont agree on every issue?

I dont agree with the party on every issue either. I joined anyway, because I want my voice heard in the party.

AFIAC, independents who want to vote in Dem primaries without joining want have their cake and eat it too.

[aquamarina]

124. No, I simply do not feel

the need to be party of a political organization. It is literally as simple as that. I am an issues person and that is it. The reason I joined DU way back in 2002 is because I was appalled at what the Bush Adm was doing to this country. I stayed because this place is a fantastic place to learn about politics and many other things. I don't need a label slapped on me to feel like I am a part of a great community. What I really cannot stand about this place is the D version of a purity test or the D version of, "it's ok if my guy/gal does it." Fortunately most of the long-termers here don't fall into that but it seems like many of the recent joiners do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

137. I couldn't join the party if I wanted to. My state doesn't have party registration.

When you register to vote you don't designate a party affiliation. I've always voted Democratic but the state doesn't know that, or care. So in my state there can be no such thing as a closed primary (even though we have recently switched away from caucuses). Since I can't join the party, does that mean I shouldn't have a say in what it does?

[GaryCnf]

78. For the daily rehash

Couldn't we just as easily have gone with "We blame Bernie" or "How dare Bernie" (the SOLE object of bullet points 1,3,4 and 5) and "Oh, yea, and we'll throw in a point about caucuses excluding oppressed groups -- which they do -- AND make that our OP title so we can FALSELY accuse "the left" of not caring about our base."

Btw, primary elections are better than caucuses when it comes to encouraging participation BUT, when it comes to oppressed groups, whether it's 1 hour to get to the polls to vote, or 5 hours to sit around at a caucus, TRULY oppressed groups don't have the time and/or opportunity to participate in EITHER process -- just like they don't have the time or opportunity to participate in the GE.

This isn't about the oppressed groups. If it were, we'd be advocating that primaries elections be run with the same openness we are demanding for general elections. Same day registration, automatic registration, vote by mail, remote location voting, et cetera. (You know, ENCOURAGING turnout.)

Stop trying to act like it is.

[Madam45for2923]

89. Time makes a difference of whether you bring your kids or not. Or need non-voting babysitter.

Time makes a difference if you are ill and can't hack it for half a day.
Time makes a difference if you need to work that day. You can go beforehand or vote earlier or go afterwards.

[GaryCnf]

95. Wow, you really have no concept

Of what truly oppressed people have to go through to vote, do you?

"Oh, darn, if I just had to get a babysitter for one hour, I could walk or jump on the bus to some remote location in the MAYBE 2 non-working hours I have ON A WEEKDAY (when most primary elections are held) so I can vote in a primary, BUT ONLY if I had ALSO taken the time to register months in advance."

Yea, that's how it works in the real world.

As I said, primary elections are better than caucuses, BUT don't for a minute act like you care about the truly disenfranchised populations who make up our base UNTIL AND UNLESS you include recommendations that make it possible, practical, and inviting for them to actually participate in primary elections.

[Madam45for2923]

97. Wow to your wow! You don't know me. You sincere caring person you!

GaryCnf
95. Wow, you really have no concept

Of what truly oppressed people have to go through to vote, do you?

"Oh, darn, if I just had to get a babysitter for one hour, I could walk or jump on the bus to some remote location in the MAYBE 2 non-working hours I have ON A WEEKDAY (when most primary elections are held) so I can vote in a primary, BUT ONLY if I had ALSO taken the time to register months in advance."

Yea, that's how it works in the real world.

As I said, primary elections are better than caucuses, BUT don't for a minute act like you care about the truly disenfranchised populations who make up our base UNTIL AND UNLESS you include recommendations that make it possible, practical, and inviting for them to actually participate in primary elections.

[GaryCnf]

105. Somehow it seems nicer

Than saying that some people know full well that simply switching from caucuses to primaries will not allow significant numbers of truly oppressed voters to participate in choosing our candidates for the general election because they will continue to face the same obstacles (well, actually, even more obstacles than) they face in the general election, that their call to end caucuses really isn't about our disenfranchised base at all and that they are appropriating the interests of the disenfranchised to further their own interests.

[mcar]

103. K&R

[redstatebluegirl]

111. That is what let the third party people into our party.

[lunamagica]

118. ABSOLUTELY!!! No More undemocratic caucuses!

[SaschaHM]

123. I agree wholeheartedly.

Caucuses need to go. Primaries should be closed, but individuals who are unaffiliated should be able to register. I'm iffy on the 2 years rule, but I think exceptions can be made for individuals that support dem causes be that through activism or caucusing. 10 years of taxes are a must.

[Voltaire2]

133. Most states have state, not party, regulations.

So other than rehashing bitterness from 2016, this discussion is basically pointless.

[tonyt53]

151. No kidding. But some people.............

[LiberalFighter]

134. The problem with eliminating caucuses and closed primaries

Is that state law determines whether a primary is open or closed and whether it is a caucus or primary. If there are primaries, I agree it should be closed.

Primaries are run by the state. Caucuses are run by the party.

[Blue_true]

138. Here is my take.

1. Get rid of caucuses.
2. Allow anyone who registered Democrat within the last three months before primary to vote. Allow anyone who turns 18 after 3 months but before primary to register and vote, same for new state residents.
3. Move traditional Blue states to first primary states. Those states should have a major, major say in selecting our nominee.