Why should independent voters pay taxes to hold Democratic Party primaries we can't vote in?

[Cheese Sandwich]

If a party like Democrats or Republicans want to exclude voters from participating like some private club, then why should taxpayers be on the hook for the cost of elections for a club they aren't in?

[DetroitSocialist83]

1. Amazing point

[JimDandy]

52. This is an old question that state officials push back on to the parties

and party officials huff and puff over.

The state officials will agree and say that the parties should hold and pay for their own primaries or caucuses. The parties say well unaffiliated voters can form their own parties and be part of the state primaries. Of course that's ridiculous as the 2 main parties have enacted laws that make it extremely difficult for other parties to get on the ballot (as Nader found out).

[BainsBane]

2. You admit you aren't a Democrat?

Why are you on this site?

That is an issue for you to take up with your state legislators. No one here has a damn thing to do with any of that.

[Buzz Clik]

8. +1

[Avalon Sparks]

18. No one on this site has much to do with a lot of points that are brought up...

Or are you saying State issues are of no relevancy on DU, Is that it?

I think the OP's point is much more worthy of discussion then oh, I dunno....something like Pope Gate.

[delrem]

27. Cheese's point was about election law and taxes.

It's a legitimate issue, but IMO not one that can be handled in the midst of a primary campaign season.

As to the question of who is a "Democrat" worth listening to, or admitting to the DU club, consider Jim Webb.
Just consider Jim Webb. Obviously a Democratic party which is of such wide extent, having such a big tent as to include Jim Webb, is a party with very porous boundaries, where I hear that Jim even contemplated voting Trump.

From politico:
"Webb, who briefly flirted with an independent bid before deciding against it, said on Friday morning that the Democratic front-runner wasn't inspirational.
"I would not vote for Hillary Clinton,” Webb said on MSBNC's "Morning Joe."
When asked whether he'd vote for Trump, Webb said he wasn't closed to the idea. “I'm not sure yet. I don't know who I'm going to vote for,” he said."

Like Lieberman right down to each dotted 'i'.

So, why should taxpayers fund such a party?

[BainsBane]

55. Jim Webb is no longer a Democrat

Not exactly a surprise. Consider that a number of people here said they would vote for him over Clinton, despite the fact he is right wing.

The Democratic Party is fairly broad and some of its representatives espouse positions I loathe, like opposition to gun control. It's one thing to have to deal with right wing crap from conservative Democrats and another to see an increasing drift to the right on that and other issues central to the rights of the majority of Americans on the part of people who aren't Democrats. I'm not saying the OP fits that characterization. Rather, I'm speaking generally. I know a lot of people think denouncing Wall Street is the mark of leftism, but the fact is the Tea Party has been doing that since it formed in 2009. Economic justice is a leftist cause, but not if it comes at the cost of the rights of the majority. Moreover, announcing that people will not vote for the Democratic nominee but instead prefer a egomaniacal, racist billionaire or a crazed Tea Bagger is ultra reactionary in the extreme and has no place among liberals, leftist, Democrats, or independents who are tagging along in stated support for one politician.

You see, the thing about being a member of a party is that it involves a lot more than promoting one politician's campaign. It entails common goals, a general sense of values and positions loosely contained under the party platform.

[delrem]

59. That's a lot to choke down in one sitting.

"like opposition to gun control" is ... outre. It's spitting insane, coming from someone who turns a blind eye to the sale of cluster bombs to despots.

Sanders' criticism of unregulated investment capital, your "Wall St.", isn't akin to anything from the AEI's "tea party". Where do you get that from?
Economic justice ought to be an universal right. Such rights don't come at the expense of anybody. That you don't understand that this is so speaks volumes.

A problem some see in your remark about "common goals" is that it ignores $160million in ... well, there's no other description than payola. Since the Clintons have nothing else to sell than their political connections. That's their business. That kind of funding doesn't speak well of "common goals" and "a general sense of values and position loosely contained under the party platform". It speaks of graft. Not "left-wing" or "right-wing" payola and graft, but just plain graft.

[revbones]

29. Sorry, when did the name change to DemocraticPartyUnderground.com ?

Or rather DemocraticPartyMembersOnlyUnderground.com

[jillan]

48. This! Or even DemocratUnderground?

[jillan]

49. So you do not want people that are not registered Dems to vote for Democrats?

I am a Dem, and have been one for 60 years but I welcome with open arms Indies who want to vote for the Dem candidate.

[BainsBane]

53. Of course I welcome independents, Republicans and anyone else who is willing to vote for Democrats

Yet, if I'm not mistaken, the OP has said he will not be supporting the nominee. The point, however, isn't about voting. The TOS of this site makes clear that it is intended for Democrats.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

I know it's quaint to think any of that actually matters when it's become abundantly clear that no small number see Democrats, both the party and its voters, as the enemy. I happen to disagree, but then I also disagree that the one man's career matters more than the electoral will of the majority, voting rights, or social justice. I disagree that the NRA's version of immunity for gun corporations is gospel. But then I'm a Democrat who votes for Democrats, which makes me worth less than the gun zealots and people who post multiple threads a day threatening and wishing for a Trump presidency, or the lunatics who insist Trump is better for women's rights than Clinton, evidently because a woman's place is not in the White House but in prison. So you'll have to excuse me if being a Democrat and leftist or liberal actually matters to me.

We have people threatening to protest the DNC because they don't like the outcome of elections, people who think it perfectly acceptable to overturn the votes of the majority in order to impose one man as nominee against the electoral will of the people. I'm supposed to not only embrace their contempt for democracy but understand their opposition to the party makes them better than mere Democrats, particularly the disabled and elderly---whose very act of voting is maligned--and voters of color who refuse to cast their ballots in accordance with the demands of the self-entitled absolutely certain that their chosen candidate matters more than the voting rights of their fellow citizens. I see nothing Democratic or democratic about a number of the arguments that have become far too common around here.

[radical noodle]

56. +1

[Cheese Sandwich]

68. BainsBane said they will not support the Democratic nominee, if I'm not mistaken.

[Contrary1]

60. Where does the OP admit that they aren't a Democrat? n/t

[pinebox]

80. I'm not a Dem but an Indy

who happens to be liberal. Does that make you afraid of something?

[BainsBane]

99. I knew you weren't a Democrat

Just as I knew the OP wasn't. Some things are obvious.

[revbones]

101. Such an ignorant point. The "D" is not magical. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

106. The "D" has become nothing more than a logo on a football jersey for far too many.

[ScreamingMeemie]

105. I vote Democratic, but I've always called myself an Independent.

I would only register as a Democrat to participate in closed primaries if I happened to live in a closed state. I was a registered Dem in MI to keep dumbassed Repubs off my doorstep. I've been here for 13 years with no transparency sheet. As long as one is not campaigning actively against Democrats, one is allowed to be on this site. Many, many, MANY Independents vote Democratic but don't want to associate with what the party has become. I am pro-Union, pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-war... and our current Democratic "principles" don't always hold to that.

Thank you.

[Recursion]

3. That's a common argument for caucuses, and I think it makes a decent point

Caucuses are paid for entirely by the parties themselves.

I know some states recoup at least some of the primary costs from the parties, but I don't think any state does so fully.

As a further point, when I lived in DC the "primary" was for all intents and purposes the actual election.

[BainsBane]

7. That's the case in any area where one party dominates

It's the case for city elections where I live. It was the case in the Democratic South until the 1960s, and I expect it's the case in many Republican areas as well.

[Recursion]

9. Right, but that's an argument *for* public funding of those primaries

Because with public funding comes public scrutiny and Federal voting standards, which caucuses don't have.

[BainsBane]

16. I'm all for primaries

As much as I personally like caucuses, specifically the part where any citizen can bring a resolution that is voted on all the way up to the national party convention, they do not enable full voter participation. National rates are about 3.7 percent of the voter eligible population this year.

Our local party has resolutions pending that would decouple the caucuses from the presidential preference ballot. I hope they succeed and will vote on them if I can (I'm currently first alternate for my state senate district's delegation to the state convention). The governor supports a presidential primary, but then he won his seat by skipping the party endorsement process and running in the primary we have at the end of the summer for state races.

[CTyankee]

87. same here in New Haven. My neighbor is a republican but is a registered democrat so he can vote for

the the weakest democrat and then vote republican in the General. It makes him feel like he is at least "participating." His wife thinks that is silly so she stays a registered Republican...

[delrem]

31. I think having the primaries drawn out in a series over several months, is somehow wrong.

I think it's senselessly divisive.

I would think that a progressive political party would find a better way to come to accord and to choose both a platform and leaders to promote that platform.

[Recursion]

46. The pace is supposed to allow a challenge from a lesser-known candidate

Having a shorter primary season makes having a huge war chest going in that much harder to beat

[delrem]

50. How does it benefit to have this going on at the same time as the R primary,

the "issues" blatted out in soundbytes and tweets, and to be IMMEDIATELY followed by the GE?

Talk about anti-intellectual, the US primary model is right at the limit.

How is that a good model for coming up with an actual platform, an actual accord, and electing a leadership to promote those values?

It's a model designed for and run by the MSM. Even the debates are conducted by the MSM. It's a free market circus.

[Recursion]

54. I think this primary season is a pretty good argument for bringing back smoke-filled rooms (nt)

[delrem]

58. It's a serious issue.

Your original candidate of choice had no chance in this system, but more important than that, the kind of more controlled progressive politics and approach to discussing issues that he embodied was simply buried. That hardly allowed a challenge from anything.

Instead we have this circus where the acrobats are only allowed to work on MSM time. Superpacs deciding what the "issues" are, and what they aren't.
The two political parties have no depth.

[Gwhittey]

5. Because we have no power and they have it all

Might makes right. It is the GOP way.

[Kalidurga]

6. That is a very good point.

I think that if tax payers are paying for primaries then all tax payers should have a say in how primaries are run for all parties, not just the two major ones.

[Joob]

13. wait, is there really no answer for this? Of couuuurse not! NT

[Kalidurga]

15. If there is an answer I sure as hell don't know what it is. NT

[BainsBane]

10. Yet caucuses, which allow very few people to particpate

are great because they favor your candidate.

Just like voter suppression was suddenly a problem in Arizona, whereas in Nevada there as a great outcry over same-day registration and in Wyoming outrage about absentee voting, especially by the disabled and the elderly.

Perhaps you should ask your state legislators to submit a bill stipulating the rules for primaries should vary depending on who you personally happen to favor as a candidate that year?

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Amazingly tone deaf post.

Since AZ has the party, the SOS and the Governor asking for an investigation.

[Avalon Sparks]

20. +10000

[BainsBane]

24. Arizona needs investigation

Clearly it was voter suppression targeted at Latino communities, which by the way favored Clinton over Sanders. It resulted from Scotus' overturning of Article V of the Voting Rights Act. Your post misses the point. Since the folks whose views on voting rights change faster than the wind were upset Bernie lost AZ, they blamed voter suppression. When they were upset he lost Nevada, they blamed too many people caucusing, especially those who registered on election day. They against argued against the disabled, elderly, and workers voting absentee in Wyoming. When the same people adopt completely contradictory positions from one electoral contest to the next, it's obvious their concern is entirely about one politician's career. In fact, the opposition to voting rights is further highlighted by the fact they are now working to overturn the results of popular elections and impose in office someone who cannot gain the majority vote.

Before you argue that my post is "tone deaf," make an effort to follow the point.

I will not be reading your response.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. I don't care if you read a fucking thing

This was tone deaf

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:16 PM
Star Member BainsBane (36,178 posts)
10. Yet caucuses, which allow very few people to particpate

are great because they favor your candidate.

Just like voter suppression was suddenly a problem in Arizona, whereas in Nevada there as a great outcry over same-day registration and in Wyoming outrage about absentee voting, especially by the disabled and the elderly.

Perhaps you should ask your state legislators to submit a bill stipulating the rules for primaries should vary depending on who you personally happen to favor as a candidate that year?

Vote for Bernie. You might lose your job, but that's not his problem. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/
Reply to this post
Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

[Skink]

11. I guess this was the impetus for the states that opened the primaries.

This is an issue the Supreme Court should take up.

[DemocracyDirect]

12. Simple: Allow people to register for a party on the day of the primary or caucus.

It's in the best interests of the party and of the state and of the individual.

Why is this so hard?

Don't we all have a right to vote?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. That has been argued in court

We have state elections...there is no role for the Feds, beyond some futzing in elections. The more futzing is federal level elections. Caucuses, some states still pay for them, others do not.

And at this point I want them to close all of them. I like parties to shoot themselves in the foot and depress even more GE participation



We are in a time of change. That be a great help in the process



And please, pretty please, a CA caucus sounds splendid...that way we taxpayers can finally tell both parties to pay for it and not tagging on during the June election.

[sadoldgirl]

19. All states should have open primaries,imo,

but this depends unfortunately on the states'
legislature.

The usual argument against it and for caucuses
is money.

It is sad, that voting does not deserves the financial
support, because it is the only way for people of all
kinds to support the very early and important
elections, not who the party puts up as inevitable
choice.

[geek tragedy]

21. Why should childless couples pay school taxes? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Conflating a private organization

With public school...that is cute

[geek tragedy]

26. Ok, why should non-voters pay for open primaries? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Why should you conflate a public organization? Public schools, with this.

By the way, I insist, close them...go caucus route, and have all state parties pay for them. In fact, this will just accelerate the process already under way. That said, this argument that parties are private has been made before the courts...my supreme court agreed with the Republicans on that argument. Next step is since you are a private organization, and goodness claiming freedom of association...fine, pay for it yourself. We don't fund any other private entity, do we?

Please, I beg if you just do it!!!

[Brother Buzz]

42. Good luck changing your pesky State Constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Ignorance is best

How the parties organize is a private thing. They inform the SOS on the method, open or closed...the state told the parties, who waned an earlier spot in the primaries after we failed to have an effect...fine, but you both pay for them. It was both wanting that. We are not picking that tab again. We tried, we failed, you pay for them. Both Rs and Ds said meekly, nope, we stay in June. So yes, the state could for fiscal reasons refuse to administer this private party function.

There is this thing called precedent. So I urge them, close every fucking primary in every state around the country. There is legal precedent in multiple states where the states are not paying for them. So go ahead. I really urge them to do it. Please, pretty please...just do it!!!

For the record, one reason this is not done, not that people here urging this know this, is exactly that little small money issue. Hell, some states use caucuses because they are cheap, compared to other methods. Party leaders know exactly what I am talking about...some folks here, not so much.

[msongs]

23. simple solution - have a primary only independents can vote in. voila you people who don't want to

to be democrats (or republicans) won't have to feel sorry for yourself for not registering as a party person

[TM99]

30. Yeah, that really doesn't address

the valid OP does it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I got a better solution

You close all primaries. Go ahead and make them into Caucasus, decouple them from regular elections, and you go ahead and pay in full for all of them. Hey, the argument made by the Rs before the CA Supreme Court that we were violating rights of association as a private party. Fine, I don't want to pay for it either.

By the way, since democrats could read the writing in the wall, they run an open primary. That is one reason they sort if maintain membership. FYY observers are still asking for how long? Why it matters? National parties assign state parties funds based on the number of party members on party rolls.

This year both primaries will count..but usually we are all like whatever, but democrats and independents still have higher participation. This year I predict Republicans will have a higher than usual turnout, and so will democrats-independents.

But I do urge you, follow that path. As more and more people leave formal parties, this could be fun. Hey, we should test that, don't you agree?

[jfern]

28. And if they aren't going to be open, at least let them change affiliation on election day

[Cheese Sandwich]

35. That would make sense.

That's pretty much what I did. In my state you automatically get registered as a Democrat when you ask for the Democratic primary ballot. That's how you register. That seems fair enough.

[jwirr]

104. I like this idea.

[MADem]

33. Get off your asses, field your own candidates, and hold your own primaries.

No one is stopping you--the only thing that prevents Greens, Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Reform Party, Independents, Constitutional Party, etc., etc., and so forth from doing this is their unwillingness to start at the bottom, grow their parties from the grassroots, develop state and national organizations, and field candidates for national office.

No sympathy. Do the work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Freedom of association and private entity

We get it...I beg of you close them, but I don't get to pay for it.

Incidentally it will only accelerate the process.

But if let's say the greens open their elections, and promise to run it under state and federal election standards, we the taxpayer pay for them. Hey just taking the argument to tje logical end.

[Prism]

69. Because Establishment entities hundreds of years old are "grass roots"

I swear, sometimes people just type things . . .

[Lazy Daisy]

71. Let me begin by saying I am registered

But this argument of "do the work" and "get off your ass" sure doesn't compel many to support your sentiment.
Here's my thought....you want to exclude people from the decision making of who will run, but when the "real democrats" figure out who THEY want, you're all "oh hey, come vote for us"

You want people or you don't. People generally don't like being the equivalent of a 2AM booty call.

[spooky3]

37. Let's make a list of all the things we pay taxes for

That we don't control, or qualify for, or directly benefit from: military spending, health care benefits for some, some education benefits, some national parks far away, construction of some govt buildings, etc etc etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Those are public

Parties are private. This is the argument that has been made in court...together with freedom of association.

I am fine with you closing every primary in every state, or in mine for that matter, but I do not pay for it, and you decouple from the June primary. For the record, this will only further crash party membership in California.

[spooky3]

40. Don't buy it. You cannot get veterans' benefits if you are not part of the "club."

You aren't guaranteed admission to every university that benefits in some way from federal funding. And primaries are essential to the functioning of our political system.

It's perfectly reasonable that they be supported to some extent by taxes, to some extent by volunteers, etc, and that access be reasonably restricted just as it is for many other things on which tax dollars are spent.

Taxes' dictating access is a very weak argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You don't buy it but my state Supreme Court did

And you are comparing Vet benefits, which are given to public servants with a private entity? That is fascinating

[Cheese Sandwich]

39. Those are all public goods and institutions. Even if my kids aren't in school, I can still go down

to the school board meeting and speak, since I'm a resident of the city. I can still vote for school board.

The Democratic Party is more like a private country club that only lets it's members vote, like a country club or private golf course or something.

Or if you say the parties are public institutions fine, then they should be governed by the public and under public control.

You shouldn't get to have it both ways.

[spooky3]

41. Your kid does not get guaranteed admission to a university of his

Or her choice, but nearly every top university is a federal contractor or benefits indirectly from student loan money.

Weak argument.

[Cheese Sandwich]

44. You're misunderstanding my argument.

My argument is that whether or not we choose to fund private political parties with public money is a choice we can make.

And my choice would be to stop funding them because they don't share my basic values of respect for grassroots democracy and civic participation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Yours is the weak one

You want closed primaries, fine...go the caucus route, it's cheaper and your private entity should pay for it

[JI7]

67. yes, unlike political parties where anyone can register for any party they want

even if it's just for one election and register to something else afterwards.

[djean111]

78. Political parties now change to support anything they want.

I never thought the Democratic Party would be pushing a candidate who was for war and the TPP and fracking and adding abortion restrictions and huge banks and Wall Street and for-profit prisons - so, really, all bets - and allegiances - are off.

[JI7]

89. political parties aren't religions

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Actually closer to organized religion than you

Think

[Fuddnik]

51. Shut up and eat your peas!

[LuvLoogie]

57. There are typically nonpartisan issues and referenda on ballots

as well.

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Right but that doesn't address the issue of whether we should be giving a bunch of free

services to private political clubs that don't even let the public vote in their elections.

[LuvLoogie]

62. If you don't want to be a Democrat, why are you here?

Bernie chose to change his affiliation. He is not calling for primaries not to be tax-funded. He is calling for increased taxation to pay for a number of things. He is also calling for the public finding of campaigns to take corporate money out of politics. That would mean taxing you help elect Republicans.

It's a two-party system because of the nature of our legislative process and separation of powers. Independents who want to select a candidate that party identifies are free to identify in that party according to the state's rules. If Independents want to stay unaffiliated then hold an unaffiliated primary with unaffiliated candidates. It's a free country.

[Fumesucker]

64. You're blowing your cover with these intelligent sounding posts

[LuvLoogie]

76. It happens. I joke and poke, but I like people.

[Cheese Sandwich]

65. How do you "be a Democrat". You have to pay dues or something?

[LuvLoogie]

70. No you don't. You just have to register as one.

Edit to add: and vote for Democrats.

[Cheese Sandwich]

72. You mean like register with the Party officially somehow?

Or you're just talking about normal voter registration?

[LuvLoogie]

73. Just normal voter registration.

Edit to add: candidates for office should be held to a higher standard politically. Hence Hillary's support in the party relative to Bernie's.

[Cheese Sandwich]

74. The way it works here you don't do that.

You just go in and ask for a primary ballot. Whichever ballot you ask for that becomes your party registration. I'm registered as a Democrat because I voted in the Democratic primary.

[LuvLoogie]

77. States rules, I guess. That sounds like same day registration.

Which I support for general elections, but not primaries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Yes, and the state can easily decouple tje primary

Partisan mind you, from the state election. You want a private election, fine by me. Pay for it.

[LuvLoogie]

95. Bernie wants public financed campaigns.

That means taxing you to elect Republicans. He decided to change his affiliation to Democrat. You are free to register to vote for him as a Democrat. He is running for the Democratic nomination. Unaffiliated voters are free to set up an unaffiliated primary with unaffiliated candidates.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Yup, and fully open primaries

Following national election standards should be the minimum requirement for me to pay for it by administering your private party election. Of course, if you own an NFL team I get your confusion

By the way, there are a slew of other reforms the us needs to carry out to meet the minimum requirements we demand in other countries.

[onehandle]

63. This is not 'Libertarian Underground.'

Try your weak meme there.

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. So you've got no answer.

[haikugal]

75. There are thousands of Independents who vote dem or liberal...they aren't all libertarian but you

already knew that. Right? If you didn't know that why not?

[pinebox]

82. I'm one :)

[haikugal]

84. Me too.... :)

[pinebox]

81. What's wrong with people voting?

Seriously, why are Dems saying things like this?
And sorry not all Indy voters are Libertarians, I'll cite myself as an example.
People shouldn't be getting taxed when they don't have representation. That was cried out 250 years ago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Because conservadems can see the writing in the damn wall

I urge them to just do it. The Rs in CA have. Their membership roles are not doing too well.

[Vinca]

79. That's a good point.

[DrDan]

83. you can vote in them . . . you just need to follow the rules

why is that such an effort . . . . oh wait, I remember now

[haikugal]

85. Please, don't leave us in the dark...

[Nye Bevan]

86. That's actually a good question.

To me, a political party is a private organization that sets its own rules and makes its own decisions about how to select its candidates. Why taxpayers should be on the hook for any of this is beyond me.

[NobodyHere]

88. Taxes shouldn't be used on a political party's nomination process.

[JoePhilly]

90. Why can'y you vote in BOTH primaries??

You're paying taxes for BOTH primaries ... so clearly you should be able to vote in both of them.

We ALL should.

Right?

[CalvinballPro]

92. Start your own party and then we're paying taxes for your primary too.

A tax argument, really? Not even going to pretend to not be Republicans any more?

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Actually this will end up in tje courts.

Please, I urge you, close them in all 50 states and territories.

[Demsrule86]

94. So join a party

It is your choice.

[CorkySt.Clair]

100. More caterwaul over long established rules and practices that don't benefit Bernie.

[LonePirate]

102. Why not eliminate parties from the primary process?

Just throw all declared candidates into a single primary, regardless of party, and then have the top two finishers square off in the general.

[jwirr]

103. In MN the caucus that selects the presidential nominee is

paid for by the Democratic Party and everyone gets to vote if they support a Democratic candidate.

Truthfully though I have to admit that I have one fear about open voting - what if a voter wants to support the worst candidate in order to weaken the party.

For instance I would vote in a R election to pick the weakest candidate so that the D can win. And this has been done in the past. I think that is why the rules are like they are in states with closed elections.

Not sure how we can avoid that and still have an open election (which I am in favor of).

[Cheese Sandwich]

109. Let it be up to the party to decide who can vote in party primaries.

I don't have a problem with that. If the party wants to run a background check on every party member to make sure they are sincere, they can do that. I have no interest in using taxpayer money to subsidize corrupt political operations that are hostile to grassroots activism and participatory democracy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Why should people without children pay for school taxes?

[NCTraveler]

108. Why should the people who don't vote have to pay for it?

Not dismissing your question at all. It simply flows off the exact same point.

As for your question, I don't see where either party has excluded anyone. They just need to register under one of the two major parties.