What do Hillary Supporters have against open primaries?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

It was a great experience here in GA to be able to vote for whichever ballot you want without having to worry about which party you are registered with.

I was not registered for a party and simply had to say "Democrat ballot please" when I went to vote to be able to make my voice heard. No shady registrations being changed randomly.

Even though the Primary was wide open here in GA, Hillary did very well so why are many Hillary Supporters strongly for closed primaries?

[Recursion]

1. Both types have pros and cons

On the one hand, the parties have some interest in knowing what candidate better reaches out to independents and crossover voters. On the other hand, there's a legitimate argument that Democrats should be who decides who the Democratic nominee is.



All of the contests Saturday were closed, so it's not like that's some kind of death sentence for Sanders.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

4. I think closed primaries embolden the two party system

I'm an independent mainly because the Democratic party isn't liberal enough for me (except for Bernie and the progressive caucus).

If all the primaries were closed it would inflate democrat numbers (edit: because I would be forced to join the party to have my voice heard) making them feel they have a mandate for their watered down Republican lite weak tea.

[artislife]

43. Yup. nt

[brooklynite]

49. So, why not join the Party and change it's philosophy from the inside?

Join your local Committee; elect State Committeepeople and work your way up?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

51. Because I ultimately want to end this two party system madness...

I would rather hope that meaningful election reform could happen some day; especially if the two parties continue to bleed members and independents continue to grow.

There should be more than two parties making it easier for individuals to find the party that best represents them and at the same time not feel like they threw their vote away on third party.

Furthermore the Democratic Party is a lost cause, it is so infected with DLC "Turd Way" establishment that I don't think there is much hope for meaningful change from within.

[brooklynite]

56. ...and yet, here you are at DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

58. Thank Bernie Sanders for that nt

[asuhornets]

117. So in other words

you had no where else to go. Stop messing with Democratic elections if you are not a Democrat.

[Bubzer]

172. It's his vote. He gets to do as he pleases, and as the system allows.

Have a great day!

[FarPoint]

80. Very nicely said...

[Autumn]

93. Are you aware that many here are not democrats? There is no requirement that posters

be democrats.

[brooklynite]

120. I'm well aware of that...I just don't understand why you'd want to.

[Autumn]

121. Why shouldn't we be here? Like Sanders we have always supported democrats.

In the past.

[Blue_In_AK]

113. Ours was closed,

but independents and Republicans who hadn't voted previously in their presidential preference poll could switch registration at the caucus.

[onehandle]

2. In 2002 Republicans crossed over to unseat a sitting Congresswoman in Georgia.

She was primaried by trolls interfering in our elections.

I don't want 'independents' and Republicans picking our candidates.

[UtahJosh]

6. Further details please?

Which Congresswoman are you referring to? What district was it? Who did the "trolls" vote in place of her? I'm guessing it was a more conservative Democrat?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

61. We're still waiting...

I bet this is one of those mythical creatures like when Republicans bleat on and on about imagined voter fraud all in the name of voter suppression.

[Recursion]

65. Cynthia McKinney is "mythical" to you?

OK

I guess I'm getting old.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

95. Cynthia McKinney's opponent went on to win the GE. So how did anybody spoil anything? nt

[Recursion]

97. Ask onehandle; I wasn't terribly sad about that outcome

I was just surprised that people seem to have forgotten that already.

[redstateblues]

156. You are from GA? You haven't been paying attention very long

[Recursion]

64. McKinney. It's still fairly recent history, at least to a geezer like me (nt)

[Gwhittey]

3. Because this on primary is all that matters

And if they allowed it in every state then (I) could vote and (I) are going for Sanders more. That is why they are against it now. Before you never heard any peep about it, like here in SC. No mention of how open is bad because she won SC. But then we get to MI and she lost that state. That is when they started to not like it.

[votesparks]

5. Because when all of the American people are allowed to vote

they lose.

[Trust Buster]

7. Only Democrats should be allowed to select our nominee. That's not even debatable IMO.

[dogman]

10. Who gets to decide who is a Democrat?

Is it like hair color or eye color, you are born with it?

[Trust Buster]

11. No, it's called registration status.

[dogman]

15. Yes, I register when I choose which ballot I want.

So what is your problem with that?

[Trust Buster]

20. It shows no commitment to the Party.

[dogman]

24. No Party owns anybody's vote.

The vote belongs to the voter to use as he/she wishes. It's called democracy, too bad it inconveniences the chosen few.

[Trust Buster]

26. In a general - yes, in a primary - no.

[dogman]

28. So we must adhere to your purity test?

I thought the State Parties made their rules, I didn't know you do.

[Trust Buster]

31. We're talking about state party rules. No need to make this personal.

I think a 6 month pre-registration requirement is quite reasonable.

[dogman]

38. Apparently many state parties don't.

I wasn't making it personal, I was pointing out that individuals don't make the rules. I think it is undemocratic and unDemocratic to restrict voting. I think voting is a right you are born with. I think if parties want to narrow their base and drive away impure voters they will find themselves irrelevant. If Parties are going to restrict voting they should hold their own votes and leave the taxpayers out of it.

[hellofromreddit]

50. What makes 6 months better than 5?

What makes 5 better than 4?

How old must a voter's decision be before it becomes valid?

[Trust Buster]

53. 6 months is my opinion.

[Pat Riots]

124. so if you excite people to become Democrats after 6 months

they and the party are out of luck?

that doesnt make sense, except if your goal is to shrink participation.

This is about Hillary not exciting independents, isnt it? Be honest.

[vdogg]

177. As do I

People who claim not to understand why a political party would wish to have a closed primary are just being disingenuous. They are obviously only concerned with getting a certain independent elected, they don't even care about the right of a party to choose their own damn candidate.

[brush]

135. If a person wants to help decide who the Democrats run in the general election . . .

it's not unreasonable to expect that person to be a registered Democrat.

If a person chooses to be an independent that's their preference. They should find an independent to vote for to run in the general election.

[artislife]

44. They love oaths

But the catch is that the oath is only one way.

The party doesn't have to own up to its responsibility to the members.

That goes for both parties.

[LuvLoogie]

82. See my response #81

[-none]

68. Why should anyone commit to the party when the party won't commit to the people they supposedly

represent?

Being backed by the exact same people backing the opposition isn't exactly being a good Democrat now is it?

[Trust Buster]

74. In my state of Ohio, I saw interviews of Democrats voting for Kasich to hurt Trump.

I asked myself, why wouldn't a Democrat vote for a Democrat. Too many games go on in a same day registration environment IMO.

[-none]

76. But Republicans voting for Hillary because they know they can beat her is OK?

How about voting for someone other than the status quo, to help us get out of this quagmire?

[Trust Buster]

78. Republicans fear Clinton. They would love Sanders. The commercials practically write themselves.

[RichVRichV]

106. Prove your claim.

Show one shred of evidence that Bernie would get destroyed in the general by the Republicans.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

146. Start with this...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/berned-up

Why do you think basically every Democrat in DC with access to focus groups and polls is against Sanders, including people like Al Franken? Why do you think that in New Hampshire, two GOP billionaires were running attack ads against Hillary in the primary, while saying absolutely nothing, or even giving backhanded compliments to Bernie? ("He believes what he is saying!&quot

People know exactly how easily he'll be taken down in the general, is why.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RichVRichV]

153. Bwahahahaha!

You're entire argument for Bernie doing bad in the general elections is a poll that none of us can see, that asks some obscure questions that no one can respond to, of a group of people that isn't listed. What an absolute joke!


What questions were asked? How were they asked? How many people were polled? What was the demographic breakdowns of those polled? How strong was their support for Bernie before the questionnaire? Were these independents, Republicans, Democrats? What was the age demographic of this poll?


You're a proud member of the reality based community and you can't post an actual poll available for everyone to see? If you're a member of the Hillary's reality based community, I'm scared to ask what her fantasy based community looks like.


Let me post some real polls for you. Not some made up ones that only insiders supposedly get a look at.

-USA Today
-CNN
-WaPo

Should I keep going? Unlike you I have real polls to back me up.


But this goes well beyond polling. You see Bernie hasn't just recently changed his views like some other candidate running. He has been running on the same platform for 35 years. And in spite of this platform, he has dominated in his home state of Vermont. In 2012 Bernie won with 71% of the vote against a very well financed Republican who threw a ton of negative ads at him. And while Vermont may not be very representative of the Democratic side of the fence, it is of the other side. It's rural, it's white, it has a large number of independents, and a sizable number of Republicans. And yet Bernie has won consistently there in spite of these supposed flaws that will be exploited in the general.


Furthermore Bernie polls great with independents, light years better than Hillary does. And unlike her he actually makes a dent in the Republican voter base (all she does is inflame them). You don't win the general election without the independent voters.


Also Bernie has something that no candidate in history has had to this scale, a massive army of online volunteers who instantly counter every smear thrown at him. If you haven't seen it in action during the primary then you need to get out in reality a little more.




Finally let's get to the congressional endorsements. You claim that not endorsing Bernie is proof that he can't win. There couldn't possibly be any other reason than that.


It couldn't be that Hillary has a history of being vindictive towards people that don't throw their support behind her while Bernie doesn't. To put it bluntly they only make an enemy if they endorse one way. And Hillary hasn't done any arm twisting on any endorsements. No, none at all.


It also couldn't be that most people are in congress because they have had some wealthy benefactors getting and keeping them there. Hillary maintains the gravy train, Bernie challenges it. That obviously plays no part.


Nope it has to be some big conspiracy that they believe Bernie can't win the general election. In spite of every bit of evidence to the contrary.

[blue neen]

158. !

"Also Bernie has something that no candidate in history has had to this scale, a massive army of online volunteers who instantly counter every smear thrown at him. If you haven't seen it in action during the primary then you need to get out in reality a little more."

[treestar]

149. It's not a marriage where there are only two people

It is many people pulling together and that involves compromise.

Cannot believe that illogic that would say that. "The people" only means "me". How can a party commit to you when it is made up of diverse people. Who agree or disagree with you on various issues.

The party is not one person. It is a bunch of people. it is not made up solely of the leaders. It is all of us. If you find the party contains people with intolerable views then you have to set up a new party.

[-none]

161. EvenObama is laughing at your post.

For your post to be true Bernie would not be doing nearly so well. The party is going one way, the people another.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

19. Can't Republicans run a concerted effort to reregister people to spoil a closed primary? nt

[Trust Buster]

21. Yes, that's why it's better to have registration deadlines.

[LuvLoogie]

81. That is why New York has their system.

Open primaries allow for subterfuge of party solidarity by the opposition who's has no interest in Democratic governance. I gave always held that party primaries be closed.

The only thing getting Bernie close or over the top in open primaries is anti-Hillary right-wing crossover. The people who have joined the party only to vote for Bernie are not interested in consensus building or compromise or long term Democratic solidarity.

Democracy is a collective endeavor. A party builds consensus on a legislative strategy to move forward. Open primaries undermines the consensus. No parties us a plutocrats' dream as there would be no organized opposition.

Democrats gave us the social safety net and civil rights. Democrats brought the US out of the Depression and this last great Recession. Any thing that undermines Democratic solidarity undermines Democratic accomplishments.

It's not about you.

[dogman]

86. That is the New York Democratic Party's right.

It is their Party and they can limit membership to their standards, as short-sighted as I might think it is. It is ridiculous to paint Bernie's supporters with that right-wing brush. I supported Hillary in 2008, but have an opportunity to go left and force her to the left. Fortunately it's not all about you either and I can vote how I choose. BTW the left and center have used the same rules to keep the GOP from going extreme right and blocked RW GOPers. The plutocrats dream is being able to buy access to both Parties. Fortunately they are not buying Bernie. The Party is not always correct, that's why we have contested Primaries. The people who support Bernie are rejecting elite ownership of the Democratic Party. The Party elite hate that democracy can overrule them.

[LuvLoogie]

90. I don't paint Bernie supporters as right-wing.

What I said is that, in open primaries, what gets him close or over the top is right-wing crossover that is not pro-Bernie, but anti-Hillary.

Building consensus takes sustained commitment. We will have our answer whether Bernie and his new Democrats are in it for the long haul. I can name several lifelong Democrats who are as Progressive as Bernie, who gave sustained the commitment. Jerry Brown is one of them. Russell Feingold is another. Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters. The list goes on. I don't want my solidarity with those Democrats sullied by right-wing subterfuge or people unwilling to build a consensus among Democrats.

[dogman]

99. Is that a fact you can prove?

Or just your opinion. I personally think their are fewer crossovers than you do. It seems absurd that there are that many RWers going to caucuses to stop Hillary. These are people trying to bring a consensus that we need votes more than we need money.

[LuvLoogie]

154. Look at the vote totals in open primaries versus closed

Then look at Ohio which was an open primary. Bernie supporters were pretty bummed that the Ohio cross-over cavalry stayed with Favorite Son Kasich. It's the only primary he has won.

Sure it's my opinion, but it's supported by evidence. I would say that about half of Bernie's vote so far is actually pro-Bernie/Democrat First. Another 25% is actually pro-Warren/anti-Hillary Left/Democrat-meh. The other 25% is anti-Hillary/right-wing/Democrat Never. That's what it looks like to me.

[hedda_foil]

165. What incredible nonsense.

The idea that it's right wingers crossing over to vote for Bernie because they think he's easier to beat is such ridiculous balderdash that it needs to be highlighted. You people really do need to get out of the Clinton's airtight bubble a bit more often.

It's people who had given enough up on voting because politicians never seem to help regular people, but Bernie will work very hard to do just that.

It's people who are liberal economically as well as socially and identify as independent because neither of the two parties seems to responds to their priorities. (BTW, that's a big chunk of the vote when Dems win.)

It's people who don't always vote but when they do they back Democrats

Finally, it's people who traditionally identified with the Republicans but have realized that they were being played and recognize that Bernie is the only honest candidate.

I've been a Democrat since I was 7. I've served on the board of my local party organization. I've been a ward chair person. I've organized party volunteers. I've donated to the party. And I am a pretty typical Bernie voter. Like many, many DUers who are committed Bernie supporters, I'm also a senior woman. There are lots of us all around in the real world too.

Take off your blinders and realize that the arrogant, antagonizing and dismissive behavior demonstrated by so many Hillary boosters has alienated an ever increasing number of us. If Hillary does eke out the nomination, that will make it even more difficult for her to win.

[LuvLoogie]

170. They cross over not because they think Bernie will be easier to beat,

But because they hate Clinton so much and they just want to trash our party any way they can. They don't vote Republican because they think it is a better socioeconomic choice. They vote Republican because they perceive the GOP as anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-LGBT, etc. THAT is why Trump is winning. He is the clearest promoter of what the GOP has been cultivating for 50 years.

And their 30 year echo chamber has convinced the Revolutionary pure that Hillary Clinton is no different than they are.

So while Hillary is trying to engage the enemy, the Revolution, frags the front runner. Hillary's supporters aren't making it harder for Bernie's to support her in the general. You are doing that to yourselves.

Look at the Litany of anti-Hillary screed posted here on a daily basis. That's the pile of shit YOU are going to have to get over all. by. your. selves.

[Renew Deal]

27. The individuals themselves

on a voter registration form

[dogman]

32. Not in my State.

You register to vote. You choose the Party when you ask for your ballot on election day.

[Renew Deal]

33. Yes. They're all different.

And in some states the choice makes you a member of that party.

[dogman]

39. That is correct for that election.

You may only vote in one Party Primary. Next vote you get to choose again.

[votesparks]

25. It wouldn't be debateable if...

The D and R establishment didn't oppress the democratic rights of independents other parties by creating unequal ballot access requirements for non D and R candidates.

Because the political establishment has denied the opportunity to independents and third parties through unfair ballot access restrictions, then the party primaries should be open to all.

You can't have it both ways, and claim to be fair or even support Democracy with the rigged system now in place.

[Pat Riots]

125. this x 100000000000000 nt

[basselope]

96. What nonsense.

And people wonder why a non establishment candidate will win this election.

The 2 party system is sickening and making America sicker as a result.

[dubyadiprecession]

8. Open primaries are an opportunity for opposition parties to high jack...

cloud or muddle the true support for any candidates within a state of that political party . Members of other parties shouldn't be allowed to pick our candidates for us.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

9. How so? Don't Candidates need the support of Independents to win General Elections?

Independents are now 43% of the American population.

[Trust Buster]

13. They can vote whichever way they wish in the general. Primaries are much different.

[LiberalFighter]

67. Primaries are intended for party supporters to decide their candidate.

Primaries are a party function. An offshoot of the caucuses.

If Independents want to vote for a candidate in a primary or caucus they should have a primary or caucus for Independents.

[Pat Riots]

126. or the party to could be open to new supporters instead assuming it is all sabotage nt

[Karma13612]

159. Wow, that's pretty high. I think this election is opening up some eyes

Regarding the marginalizing of independents in the primary nomination process. Some state election laws really need to be changed if we ever want to see any presidential candidates besides Turd Ways and republicans.

[dogman]

12. So take your Party and go home?

Again, how do you pick who is a Democrat? Is there a birthmark to identify them?

[Trust Buster]

14. Are you serious ?

[dogman]

17. Are you?

[randome]

30. Um, the Democratic Party (composed of Democrats) decides who represents the Democratic Party.

It's really as simple as that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

34. Don't be surprised when the democratic party loses when they ignore 43% of the electorate nt

[LiberalFighter]

69. Which leaves a majority of 57%

[Gwhittey]

73. 57%?

Since when is DNC made up of 57% of electorate?

[hedda_foil]

166. Not in the General it doesn't.

[brush]

137. Republicans feel the same way. They want repugs deciding who their . . .

candidate will be.

[dogman]

45. The point is: Who are Democrats?

Of course Democrats pick the Democratic candidate. However the determination of who gets to vote is made at the State level. This is not about who is the Democratic candidate, it's who is a Democratic voter?

[randome]

70. Well, it sort of seems to me, for the sake of accuracy and organization, that...

...members of the Democratic Party should be able to pick their candidates. Who is to decide that some Independents are the 'right kind' of Independents to vote for our party?

If you support a party, then join it and get involved and help elect the kind of candidates you want.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

105. Maybe it's because you have commitment issues, then.

Belong to a party and work and vote for that party. Anything else is just laziness, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[dogman]

122. Been there, done that.

But I live on a two way street. The Party has to commit to the people if it expects people to commit to it. Top down doesn't work in a democracy. Bernie has made a commitment to the people. With that and integrity he is bringing new people in and old people back. If you were to listen to him you would hear that he is relying on the people to demand what they want. He explains that he can not do it for us, it is up to us to rise together. But some are followers and need a Party organization to direct them while they think they are participating in democracy.

[brush]

136. Try registering to vote and checking the Democratic Party box.

That puts you on record as being a Democratic.

Not that hard.

[dogman]

163. It's hard when there is no Democratic box to check.

I am registered to vote in my state. When I attend a Primary election I ask for the ballot for the Party I wish to vote in. As you say not that hard, but unacceptable to a number of posters here.

[brush]

168. I registered voters in my state and there is the option to declare your party . . .

affiliation, quite a few options really, including Dem, Republican, Aim, and on and on.

If you state is different, that's different.

I still don't think people who aren't a member of a party should choose the party nominee.

[HereSince1628]

98. MY father claimed to do this...he held one local union office or another throughout his working life

and claimed to do this so he could vote against Percy in the primary and also in the Nov elecitons.

There have been many articles written on this topic over the last coupld decades; most of those conclude this sort of cross-over if it occurs isn't usually significant and doesn't make any significant difference.

So, it seems the concern about this, is mostly unsupported anxiety...and doesn't really justify closed primaries, but losed primaries can do a few thing including

1) formally identifying each member of the parties base by name, that's useful for those who use such voter registration for canvassing and fund-raising.

2) for those states that don't allow same-day affirmation of party affiliation, closed primaries limit certainly limit the influence of surges of unaffiliated participation during the last few days of campaigning and some which require registration a month in advance, may suppress voters who don't turn on to a presidential primary until campaigns enter the state. This is better for incumbents and front-runners than it is for challengers.

[Karma13612]

160. In NY STATE, party affiliation for already registered is six months deadline, longest in

The nation.

Hillary will win NY unless we were able to register a lot of new voters, that deadline was Friday 3-25.

[Karma13612]

18. Very good question.

When I bring up the obscenely long deadline between declaring your party affiliation to Democrat in NY, to the date of the closed primary, (6 months!!), I was told that people should just learn the rules and stick to them. And also, there were a lot of people who felt that having Independents have a say in "our" Democratic primary is wrong.

So, not sure how that would work in the future. I mean, do we want to be inclusive and get Dems and progressives into office or not?
Until there is more viability for a 3 or more party system, then closed primaries are going to be the bane of anyone thinking progressive and who wants to get into office and represent the progressives in this country.

If Bernie had run independent, he would not get enuf votes and would split the votes on the "democratic side" of things when stacked up against the republicans, so the republicans win. In my view, he had no choice but to run as a Dem, and do the best he can.

And having open primaries work in his favor. Since everyone already knows Hillary, and she is quite established as a Democrat, her base is pretty solid, not too much switching from Independent or Republican I wouldn't imagine. But, Bernie supporters are representing Independents, and those unaffiliated in some cases. Once people hear about Bernie, that get enthusiastic and want to do whatever it takes to vote for him. In closed Primaries, this can be difficult if their decision comes AFTER the deadline to change affiliation to the Democratic party.

Open Primaries for all!!!

[brush]

139. Bernie chose to join the Dem party to run, why can't other independents?

[Karma13612]

148. I agree that we should have people join.

But, when a state requires that someone change parties 6 months in advance of an election, you are asking said voter to plan that he or she might want to change party affiliation for a candidate they don't even know exists yet.

My only point in my long winded previous comment is that if you are going to require people change affiliation for a closed election: don't make the deadline a full half-year in advance.

It is unreasonable.

That is why my conclusion is just to open up and have consistent, universal open primaries across all the primary states.

[brush]

150. Yes. 6 months is too long.

[Trust Buster]

23. A 6 month deadline for registration is quite reasonable IMO.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

40. If my independent taxpayer money has to go to fund party primaries...

Then I think I should have a say in the primary regardless of my party affiliation.

If Democrats want completely closed nomination process then they should fund their elections of their own coffers...

Oh wait, DWS bankrupted the Democratic party.

[Trust Buster]

41. I feel differently. I only want committed Democrats deciding our nominee.

Independents can join the process in the general.

[Bettie]

79. Well then,

maybe we need to go back to the nominee being chosen by just a few people, get rid of that messy voting thing.

Each party just tells us who their nominee is (picked by the finest corporations and party "leaders&quot .

Then, in the general, we get two nearly identical choices.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. They fear the people who choose not to belong to a political party. Op[en primaries are

too much like democracy. The establishment is afraid of losing control.

[Trust Buster]

42. No, I don't want Republicans trying to win the general by voting for Sanders in a primary.

[-none]

75. Republicans are not the ones voting for Sanders.

It is the real, true Liberal Democratic base voting for Sanders. The base that was left behind when the Democratic party leadership went 3rd Way, by going to the Right into Republican territory.

If you really don't want Republicans trying to win the General, then vote for Bernie. He is far less of a Republican than Hillary is.

[Trust Buster]

77. Republicans like Limbaugh actually have a name for it. It happens.

[strategery blunder]

138. I'll give you the example of my state

WA doesn't have a "closed" caucus. It's semi-open, you can declare yourself a Democrat the day of and participate and be counted.

Bernie won almost 3:1 here, and you're telling me that the operation chaos limbaugh types were the ones who put Bernie over the top? In WA of all places?

(I recognize you haven't said that directly, but that is the implication of "I only want Democrats voting in Democratic primaries because of crossover sabotage.&quot

The Deomocratic Party has left a LOT of its members behind. A LOT of those former members went I. How the hell you think the Dems can still (sometimes) win elections when the Democratic Party has shrunk to ~30% of the electorate because of its rightward turn?

The people who feel that the Democratic Party left them years ago because of Turd Way politics and the associated corruption, who want to see it return to the Democratic Party they remember and supported, should be able to participate in reclaiming what the party stood for before the DLC infiltration, IMO.

[artislife]

48. They fear their own grassroots as well.

Lets face it. The system supports the power grab.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Just cut out the middle man

Have an open presidential primary and the leading vote getter becomes president. If the leading vote getter doesn't have a majority then there's a run off between the two leading candidates.

No more conventions and party debates.


That's democratic


BTW, the irony is my system would produce a Trump-Clinton match up, which is likely what we are going to get.

[brush]

140. That makes too much sense, you subversive you.

[shawn703]

36. Because they want to ensure the establishment wins

New people in the party bring in new ideas, and that's bad for Hillary.

[Kip Humphrey]

37. I'm a strong advocate for semi-open caucuses. Totally open leads to crossover skulduggery occurring

usually down ticket to defeat a promising candidate of the other party. Caucuses may be a bit messy (all of which could be addressed) but they are harder to steal than electronic voting in primaries and they are more community-centric and small 'd' democratic. When a pan gender native American can stand and through passion and eloquence convert an undecided fellow voter to vote a certain way, its a beautiful thing to see.

[brush]

141. Caucuses are outdated really. Most people don't have time to spend 3 or 4 hours . . .

at a caucus at a specific time, dividing into candidate support groups, counting, then trying to persuade those from opposing groups to come over to yours, then counting again then reporting the numbers.

Nothing but a pain.

With a primary you can plan your time to vote around your work or school schedule and be in to vote and out in the 15 minutes that you choose to vote.

[Kip Humphrey]

142. Arizona might disagree as well.

[brush]

144. You do know that the repugs in Maricopa county closed polling sites from 200 to 60

to suppress dem votes, right?

Without their shenanigans there would not have been those long lines.

I have relatives in Tucson (Pima County) and they didn't have those long lines.

[pinebox]

46. Everybody should be allowed to vote for whomever they choose. Period. FULL STOP!

This is a democracy, not a damn membership drive for the local chapter of the bridge club!
I'm an indy and I will NEVER be a Democrat, ever. (I thought of sticking around but now, nope) I am only a Dem because I had to switch in order to caucus for Bernie and after all the bullshit I have seen this election cycle and how some people (Hillary supporters) care much more about their own wallets than their fellow citizens (single payer, that Republican keyword "entitlements" and "how do we pay for it?!&quot and how they channel their inner Rand Paul, I don't ever want to be a member of the Democratic party either. Not much difference than Republican logic to be honest. It's spewed on here on a daily basis in GD-P. It disgusts me. Now we have some sort of "party purity test" where apparently little Johnny is in a red shirt today but wants to play on the blue team for kickball? Absolutely childish.

You know what, this sounds like voter suppression if I ever heard it. In fact, IT IS! There's literally no difference between this and people who sit in long lines to vote. Let's hark back to Ohio in 2008. Same shit different spin. "Oh you are an indy, you can't vote!" Wah wah wah. That sort of sounds like "you don't have an ID so you can't vote!". Many people have no means to getting to where they need to be in order to change their affiliation. Literally. The problem is the exact same, the scenario is only spun to fit the narrative for those who defend the status quo.

Cue the whining.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

87. bravo!

I feel ya

[redstateblues]

155. "Not a dimes worth of difference"? Start your own party

Democrats get to decide who the Democratic nominee is. That's why Bernie became a Democrat. Nobody is suppressing your vote. You get to vote for whomever you choose in the GE.

[pinebox]

167. Sure.

I find it hilarious that Dems are supposed to be the party of inclusion yet here is a prime example of how Dems aren't.
Nobody is suppressing your vote? Actually they are. I wonder how many have had their votes suppressed because they were 80 years old and couldn't get to the place they needed to get to in order to change party affiliation to vote in a primary? KAPOW!
It's nearly identical as the voter ID thing. Not everybody has means to get someplace to get one.

[Karma13612]

157. You got it right!!!!! No whining from me!!

And news flash, after we get Bernie elected, I just might walk away from the Dem party.
I voted for the Green Party candidate for us congress NY 21 in 2014.

Positively ridiculous how many hoops we have to jump thru. Waaaay more complicated than it needs to be. They don't go thru all this in the UK. People wouldn't "wear it" as they say over there.

[hobbit709]

47. same thing the establishment types have against a people's movement.

[DCBob]

52. We are selecting the Democratic nominee for the Democratic party.

Seems to me it should be Democrats doing the selecting.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

54. The Primaries are funded by the taxpayers... I think any who wish should have a say

If democrats think otherwise then they should fund their nomination process with DNC money...

Oh right, DWS has the DNC in debt

[brooklynite]

60. So you agree that Indepoendents shouldn't have participated in yesterday's Party Caucuses.

And your insult shows that you have no idea how the Party works; Caucuses have always been the responsibility of the STATE Party.

[LiberalFighter]

71. States provide methods for other parties to have their own primary or caucus.

They just have to meet the requirements set by state law.

[Raine1967]

151. In this reply, you are parroting almost EVERY RWNJ website.

I googled DNC in Debt and got the results you will see if you click.
the top hits were All from LAST YEAR.

Here are the top websites:

Fox News
NewsMax
TownHall
Breitbart
Freebeacon
HotAir
DailyCaller
Washington Times

So tell us again how much you care about Hillary supporters and for that matter, Bernie supporters when you are spewing RW talking points?

[morningfog]

55. Losing, lol.

[Beacool]

57. I don't like either open primaries or caucuses, regardless of who wins them.

I have been speaking against caucuses for years. They are undemocratic, IMO caucuses should have ceased to exist decades ago.

As for open primaries, a primary is meant to elect the nominee of a party. Why should people who are not members of that party be allowed to decide who is the nominee? If someone wants to vote in a primary they should have skin in the game and be a registered member of that party.

[dogman]

89. Letting people choose whom to vote for is undemocratic?

Some caucuses are a truer democratic process than merely voting. People have to stand in front of their neighbors and make the case for their candidate. Talk about skin in the game, what is more involved than taking the time and effort to stand for your candidate? As a taxpayer and Veteran, believe me, I have skin in the game.

[Beacool]

94. That's the point, many people cannot caucus for various reasons.

Either due to their jobs or to physical infirmities. Also, they may be out of the state. Primaries offer a wider range of time to vote and people can also vote through absentee ballots. Caucuses limit the amount of people who can vote because of the time and effort that it takes to caucus. Any system that makes it hard for people to vote disenfranchises a portion of the population and therefore is undemocratic.

[dogman]

102. People also cannot vote for various reasons.

I agree that the caucus system is outdated. The Parties should conduct and pay for their own Primaries as they see fit, using any method they choose. Let them have that fight internally. If they choose to reject voters they can take the chance of alienating voters and possibly losing because of it. I personally think there should be a National holiday specifically for voting with provisions for absentee voting for those who must work or those who will be away on that day.

[brush]

143. Caucuses take hours. Most people don't have that kind of time anymore.

IMO they are outdated as they favor people who don't have a job or school to go to.

With primaries you can be in and out in the 15 minutes that works for your schedule without spending 3 hours at the specific time you have to be in the room to caucus.

That's right, you have to be in the room at specific times to be counted.

[MichMan]

59. Unless there is an unopposed candidate

Michigan has open primaries. I wish they were closed. Too many times, if there is an unopposed incumbent or frontrunner, it leads to a lot of crossover mischief as supporters of the incumbent cross over to subvert the primary on the other side. That is not democracy in my opinion.

I am convinced that is how an unknown Rick Snyder won the Republican primary for Governor of Michigan

[Fuddnik]

83. We have a horrible problem with closed primaries in Florida.

Usually the most extreme Republican runs unopposed in the General.

The Democrats down here, except for a few gerrymandered "safe" seats won't or can't recruit a candidate for dog catcher (Mosquito Control down here). The primaries are technically "open" where both parties can vote in the primary of one party. But, the primary becomes closed to a single party if there is any "opposition", including a "write in" candidate. Yes, you have to file to run as a write in candidate, before qualifying, usually in late April, to run as a write in candidate in November. If you're not filed, any votes for you in November are tossed out.

Even though our, corrupt, incompetent party can't recruit a candidate down here (who would want to run, when they won't support you, anyway?) the repubes usually put up a "write in", usually a 80 yo gate guard, or a 20 yo newspaper delivery person, to close the primary.

Usually the most hard core, right wing repukes show up for the primaries, and any halfway sane or moderate repub goes down in flames.

And people wonder how we got this insane legislature, and congressional delegation.

[MichMan]

84. The solution is better Dem candidates

The solution is better Democrat candidates, not by voting in the Repub primary for the lesser of two evils.

IMO, the Repubs have the right to select their candidate and we have the right to select ours, and we need to make a compelling case on why ours is the best choice.

[djean111]

133. DWS actively discourages "better Dem candidates" down here. She likes fellow DINOs.

She pretty much controls the Florida state Democratic party apparatus, and has a huge say in which Democrats will get backing from the DNC. She has openly supported GOP cronies.

The DNC, IMO, does not like open primaries because that can take the choice of candidate out of their hands. The illusion that the people have chosen is gone, when the choices are preselected by the DNC.

[Orangepeel]

63. I don't have a candidate, but I support closed primaries on principle

the purpose of a primary is for party members to choose who will represent their party in the general election. Anybody who wants to have a say in who is going to be listed as the ______ party candidate ought to affiliate with the _______ party.

I don't understand the idea that someone who doesn't consider themselves a member of an organization would have a say in what is essentially an endorsement vote by the organization.

[dogman]

91. That would be fine if the government would stop supporting the two party system.

Why should a citizen be forced to choose between the choice of the two Parties. When I choose my ballot I choose my Party for that election. Why should I be left out of the process?

[Onlooker]

66. Both Hillary and Bernie supporters support what's best for the candidate.

Bernie supporters support the highly undemocratic caucus system because he does well there.
Hillary supporters support the closed democratic primaries because she does well there.

Seems like open primaries are the best choice, though there is a risk of shenanigans there since it means people can cross over from their own party to vote in a disruptive way.

[pdsimdars]

72. The answer to your question . . . .

the same thing that Republican Governors have against Democrats voting. . . .

if they get to vote, the conservatives lose.

And make no mistake, Hillary IS a conservative. If it walks like a duck . . . . .

[baldguy]

85. How many times does this have to be repeated?

*REPUBLICANS* are the enemy here. *REPUBLICANS* should have no say in selecting the next Democratic Party nominee. Open primaries are the most basic and blatant form of ratfucking that exists.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

92. When you disparage 26% of the electorate automatically....

It is no wonder this country is heading down the toilet into a hot mess of Oligarchy and complete incompetence and corruption in Washington.

I guess it is easier to distract us with calls to disparage Republicans than to take a look at and analyze the candidates the Democratic Party is offering and which ones are being all but coronated.

[baldguy]

103. Picking between the hairsbreath difference between Clinton & Sanders

vs. the pending fascist dictatorship under trump, the choice is easy: I'm voting for the Democrat.

I also see you cite four of Scaife's bullet points against Hillary there. How can you claim to be a progressive Democrat when you insist on using RW Republican propaganda against a progressive Democrat?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

108. I see, how dare I have reservations about a Democrat... I must be a Right Winger...

Every criticism of Hillary Clinton is a right wing attack apparently

[baldguy]

109. No, every criticism of Clinton isn't a RW attack - just those that were thought up by RWers.

Which is most of them. Like 99%.

[Pat Riots]

129. but that 1% criticism is a big one!

she has a 1% problem for sure.

all that 1% corporate money.....

oh, well, the CBC does it, so it must be liberal to take bribes now.

[randome]

104. You call it 'disparaging' to expect Democratic Party voters to select their candidates?

Why not let Tea Partiers vote in our primaries? Or is it only the 'right kind' of Independents you want to let in? Jesus, what's wrong with belonging to a party and working and voting for your candidate? You just want it to easy for Independents. Don't commit to anything, that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

107. This isn't a sport game... I refuse to take a pledge of fealty...

Democratic Party doesn't own liberal votes, they have to earn our vote!

[baldguy]

110. What is "Bernie or Bust" other than a demand for fealty?

It's blackmail meaning either we nominate Bernie, or we see the utter destruction of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

112. You don't get to decide the values and judgements...

A vote is based upon. The fact that the Democratic Party is bleeding members and funding as well as losing seats in the legislative branch should be ringing alarm bells. I personally refuse to vote for any Third Way corporatist, Warhawk candidates.

[baldguy]

114. There you go with the RW propaganda again.

You know it's all based on lies, innuendo & unsubstantiated accusations, right?

Making good progressives question the dedication, motives & integrity of their Democratic candidates is what it's designed to do. It's so sad & unfortunate that it works so often.

[Pat Riots]

131. not based on lies, based on history

the DNC/Third Way is and always has been about triangulating and making the Democratic party Centrist rather than Left. it has and does involve corporate friendly policy, and a reflexive instict not to be seen as weak on military matters. That is the Clinton faction in American politics.

The RW does not attack her primarily for her corporate policies or hawkish mentality. they have Benghazi and Vince Foster to worry about.

please try and keep up.

[Pat Riots]

132. DLC not DNC nt

[baldguy]

134. The fact that Clinton haters can't tell the difference speaks volumes.

[bettyellen]

145. that sounds cut and pasted- and confusing the DNC for the DLC is hilarious.

In short, it seems like you haven't been keeping up and are parroting someone else's thoughts.

[brush]

147. Well wait to cast your vote in the general since you don't belong to a party.

See, if you belong to a party, say the Dems, you can phone bank, register voters in public places, canvass door-to-door for you candidate, donate money, hold candidate events at your home, drive voters to the polls — you know, work for the candidate you prefer, then you vote for your candidate in your party's primary.

People that have that kind of skin in the game don't feel that people who don't put in the work should decide who their party's candidate is.

[MisterP]

100. the party's been on a careful reducing plan to leave it with only those who'll literally take any

betrayal of promise and principle; 26% of the electorate and shedding unwanted Senatorial seats is a great electoral diet in their eyes

that's why they keep losing and nobody likes them anymore

[lunamagica]

101. I think Democrats should pick the Democratic candidate. I don't want Republicans

having the abilit to manipulate Democratic elections

[DrDan]

111. the purpose of a primary is to determine the party's nominee

It seems only logical to me that the decision lies with those belonging to that party.

Why would members of a party want non-members to aid in that decision?

I say that as a Florida independent. I cannot vote in the Dem primary. I can, however, donate and work for my choice.

[Vote2016]

115. Independent voters hate Hillary. She loses when she has to go beyond her elderly Democrats base

[liberal_at_heart]

116. We Independents are hated almost as much as Republicans. They hate that Democratic

candidates have to earn our vote. They think we should just give the Democratic candidate our vote. I heard the Nader argument yesterday when I said I was an Independent. Doesn't matter. They did not change my vote yesterday with that argument and it won't change my vote in November either. Whomever gets my vote in November will have had to earn it. I will not just give it to somebody.

[pampango]

118. I'm torn. Closed primaries make more sense but my candidate does better in open ones.

Ideally the members of each party should be allowed to pick their candidate for the general election using whatever criteria they want - most liberal/conservative, most likely to win the GE, most likely to motivate the base, most likely to attract independents and crossover voters, etc.

And ideally this choice should be made in primary elections rather than caucuses since the GE is an election not a giant caucus.

However, it is not an ideal world. My candidate does better in open primaries and caucuses than in closed primaries. Short term I support open primaries; long term closed ones. Consistency thy name is not pampango.

[Live and Learn]

119. oh hell, they don't even want an open party. They'd like to toss half of us from the party.

Only some people are worthy of voting.

[RandySF]

127. 1972

Republicans caused mischief in the Michigan primary and helped George Wallace win the state. In 2000, we Democrats returned the favor and helped John McCain win. In 2008, as Obama was trying to wrap up the nomination, Ruch Limbaugh urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary.

[d_legendary1]

128. Not really sure they mind it at all

Florida is a closed primary state and she won that easily. I guess it depends on the state its being held.

[upaloopa]

152. I want our Democratic nominee to be picked by Democrats. What is so hard to understand about that?

You don't want to join a party then don't but don't expect the party to honor your decision.

[SFnomad]

164. Why do Sanders Supporters want the possibility of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"?

It's called a Democratic Primary for a reason.

[DesertRat]

171. I'm a Hillary supporter and have nothing against open primaries

Don't paint everyone with the same brush.

[gollygee]

173. I think there are good reasons for either system, but I really wish every state did it the same

And on the same day.

[Bubzer]

174. Looks like somone just got awarded a time out from jury-duty:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Because I ultimately want to end this two party system madness...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1585876

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This new member is consistently posting that . they want a third party. I don't believe that this person is here to support Democrats.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:49 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "I don't believe that this person is here to support Democrats." Your opinion isn't enough to warrant a hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster makes some valid points.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree that the Democratic party is a "lost cause" but I also don't think this warrants a hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Straddles the line, but Democrats should be able to handle it

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

175. Someone alerted my post? I am amazed because I try to be respectful when commenting

[pangaia]

176. FEAR !!