HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Closed Primaries, At This...

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:22 PM

 

Closed Primaries, At This Point In A Race, Make The Most Sense

As we get closer to the closed primaries that begin with New York, I keep seeing people arguing that a closed primary is a form of 'disenfranchisement' or 'voter suppression'.

Where do people get the idea that they have the right to participate in a party, when they aren't members of it?

If a state decides they want to allow open primaries, I will disagree with them, but it's within their rights by the rules. Likewise, if a state wants to run a closed primary, I fail to see what makes it undemocratic. So long as everyone knows the rules beforehand, making sure you're a member of a party is not an invasive step to make sure you get to have your say.

There's a reason why closed primaries, especially at this stage of the contest, are a good thing. Imagine we are approaching New York in a tightly contested contest, while the Republicans have already all but selected their nominee. If we had a string of open primaries left, there would be nothing stopping the Republican party from crossing over en masse, and voting in the Democratic primary to make sure the weaker candidate gets put over the top. Does that sound fair?

Or, imagine in four years when they have to find a candidate to run against our incumbent. Should we Democrats be allowed to all go vote in the Republican primary, to make sure that an unelectable candidate gets the nomination? Does that sound fair?

At a certain point in the race, we have enough evidence of how independent voters feel to factor it into our evaluation of our own candidates. But for the protection of our process, we need to shut off the possibility of outside influence to make sure that we are indeed picking out own candidate.

108 replies, 3563 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply Closed Primaries, At This Point In A Race, Make The Most Sense (Original post)
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 OP
daleanime Apr 2016 #1
CalvinballPro Apr 2016 #2
apcalc Apr 2016 #58
Hortensis Apr 2016 #72
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #3
LostOne4Ever Apr 2016 #63
frylock Apr 2016 #89
Avalux Apr 2016 #93
Joob Apr 2016 #4
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #16
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #5
demmiblue Apr 2016 #6
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #7
Joob Apr 2016 #8
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #26
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #11
Kentonio Apr 2016 #64
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #69
Gwhittey Apr 2016 #70
Kentonio Apr 2016 #71
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #76
Kentonio Apr 2016 #77
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #78
Kentonio Apr 2016 #80
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #17
jwirr Apr 2016 #50
demmiblue Apr 2016 #56
jwirr Apr 2016 #59
Skink Apr 2016 #51
jillan Apr 2016 #9
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #10
-none Apr 2016 #34
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #35
-none Apr 2016 #37
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #38
-none Apr 2016 #40
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #42
-none Apr 2016 #48
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #53
-none Apr 2016 #61
jwirr Apr 2016 #52
frylock Apr 2016 #95
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #97
frylock Apr 2016 #99
demmiblue Apr 2016 #20
apcalc Apr 2016 #62
bigwillq Apr 2016 #12
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #29
Buddyblazon Apr 2016 #13
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #19
Buddyblazon Apr 2016 #28
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #33
jwirr Apr 2016 #55
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #14
DefenseLawyer Apr 2016 #15
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #21
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #18
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #23
Cali_Democrat Apr 2016 #31
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #46
Kentonio Apr 2016 #65
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #75
TheFarseer Apr 2016 #22
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #25
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #24
Avalon Sparks Apr 2016 #27
BlueCaliDem Apr 2016 #30
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2016 #32
LisaM Apr 2016 #36
Kentonio Apr 2016 #67
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #81
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #79
msongs Apr 2016 #39
jmousso75 Apr 2016 #41
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #43
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #47
B Calm Apr 2016 #44
Andy823 Apr 2016 #45
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #49
B Calm Apr 2016 #92
Karmadillo Apr 2016 #54
Binkie The Clown Apr 2016 #57
Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #60
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #73
Brother Buzz Apr 2016 #84
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #85
Brother Buzz Apr 2016 #100
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #101
apcalc Apr 2016 #66
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #68
Tarc Apr 2016 #74
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #82
Tarc Apr 2016 #106
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #108
Ken Burch Apr 2016 #96
Tarc Apr 2016 #107
TM99 Apr 2016 #83
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #86
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #87
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #88
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #91
TM99 Apr 2016 #94
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #98
TM99 Apr 2016 #90
Politicalboi Apr 2016 #102
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #103
jfern Apr 2016 #104
HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #105

Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:23 PM

1. ......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:25 PM

2. How is a closed primary disenfranchisement but a caucus is not?

 

If you can't attend a caucus due to disability, is there an alternate way for you to participate? Depends on what state you live in. And even then, if you get to vote by surrogate, some candidate's supporters are going to question your right to use that surrogate, just because they don't like how you vote.

As usual, the complaint is only about the process that hurts Bernie, but nothing but approval for similar processes that benefit him. I know hypocrites when I see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CalvinballPro (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:25 PM

58. Imo

Caucuses are flawed . I think states allow them in order to save money. Democratic they are not. But they allow and sanction them, so we live with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apcalc (Reply #58)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:08 PM

72. Closed, because enemies of candidates

and parties themselves are using open primaries to defeat them. That is a failure of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:28 PM

3. I am going to beg of you CLOSE ALL OF THEM. I mean it, ALL OF THEM

 

but you do not get to use state resources to run your election. It is a private event, you pay for it.

That will keep both of us happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:45 PM

63. ^I agree with this! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:58 PM

89. ++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:01 PM

93. + 1 gazillion! Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:28 PM

4. I agree but don't independents help pay for it or something? Is that false, just want to know.

Also, I have a feeling this whole thought process would back fire in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joob (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:35 PM

16. Yes, you do, when you fund your local registrar through taxes

 

So since they want to run a private show, they don't get to use state equipment. It is that simple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:28 PM

5. I think you should be able to register to vote right up to the day of voting. Many do not get a

good view of the person running for office until they are in their State vying for that position. They many times can then get a better understanding of their views and possibly see them in person before they make their decision. As far as open primaries why not. If it is not for Independents those running would not win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:28 PM

6. Nope... open primaries, same day registration.

THAT is the way to not disenfranchise the voters.

THAT is democracy.

I find it so strange that people on DU want to quell the vote, not swell the vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:30 PM

7. Because in this case this year that would mean their candidate would have less of a chance to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:30 PM

8. The more I learn about the Democratic Party, the less I find it Democratic.

First time voter here, so I'm glad they point out this is how they think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joob (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:43 PM

26. That is becuase the neo liberal wing of the party can see the writing on the wall

 

and they don't want their dominance to end. Also the party is going back to it's roots. This is the 6th party realignment. So the left is truly the riff raf they want to out out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:33 PM

11. But

 

How is it 'disenfranchisement', when independents have no right to pick a party nominee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:48 PM

64. Because realistically independents only get 2 choices when it comes to election day.

 

The points you raised in the op are true, but they have to be put against the alternative, which is a voter in a two party system not getting a fair chance to assess the candidates before voting for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:03 PM

69. What's stopping anyone from assessing?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:06 PM

70. Funny this is same thing GOP use to

 

Justify Voter ID laws. Odd how so called Democrats are using same argument to say closed primaries are only way to go because they keep out those other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:06 PM

71. A lot of the candidates vetting takes place over the course of the campaign

 

In the debates and beyond. Also realistically the public aren't generally paying that much attention until close to their states race when the TV ads start. Sure you could say 'That's on them' but given the importance of attracting the independent vote it only ends up harming the party. If people don't feel like they have a say in the nominee, why would they bother helping campaign for the general?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #71)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:20 PM

76. Yes, it's on them

 

If people aren't paying attention, that's their fault. I can't vote in a Republican primary, but I damn sure know what kind of frightening proposals they're putting out there.

And I certainly didn't start listening to Hillary and Bernie last week, when the ads started coming on for our primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #76)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:22 PM

77. So you'd rather the party cut off its own nose to spite its face?

 

The independents might be losing a chance to vote for a nominee, but we're losing the chance to gain new energized voters who might be late to the race but who could end up being enthusiastic campaigners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #77)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:26 PM

78. It's not spite

 

It's a belief that a party should decide party business, and if people want a say, the doors are open for the genuine to join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #78)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:27 PM

80. Just not if they don't hear the news until less than 6 months before?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:36 PM

17. Very Repub of them...

Just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:01 PM

50. If we can have same day registration in the GE then there is

not reason it cannot work in a primary.

When all of you are saying "open primaries" are you talking about all candidates running from any party are in the same primary or caucus? That would mean that Rs would be voting in the election also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:19 PM

56. Yes.

Republican and Democratic primaries are done on the same day.

In Michigan, you go to the polls and request a Dem or a Rep ballot (no one is registered to a certain party, like in many states). Personally, I do not think that I should have to request a certain ballot... my vote and preferred party affiliation is my business. All options should be on one ballot.

Since I have only voted Dem in my lifetime, I would have to suss out how other parties could be included in the process as it seems that independent leaning voters are on the rise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:25 PM

59. Okay, that is also what I consider an open primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:05 PM

51. Only some of the more narrow minded posters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:31 PM

9. We should NOT let people vote for our Democratic Candidates! Tell me you are joking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:32 PM

10. Of course they should vote

 

they should just be Democrats first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:57 PM

34. How can they become Democrats if they aren't allowed to vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:59 PM

35. By registering as Democrats, obviously.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:08 PM

37. Here in Missouri, when you go into vote in the primary, the ask you which ballot you want.

Democrat, Republican, or Independent. That is the way it should be. Closed primaries are voter disenfranchisement, as it prevents some people from voting.
You would think that real, actual Democrats would want every eligible voter to be able to vote. Keeping people from voting is the Republican way to "winning" elections.
Hillary supporters seem to be OK with that for some reason. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:10 PM

38. I don't want Republicans voting in a Democratic primary.

 

Primaries aren't elections. They are party decisions that have been put to a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:15 PM

40. If primaries are not elections then how can one vote in primaries?

You are voting for (or against) the candidates in the primaries elections. Also they are called Primary elections. Repubispeek doesn't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:17 PM

42. Remember; candidates used to be chosen in smoke filled rooms

 

There is nothing in the bylaws of this country that guarantee anyone the right to pick a party's candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:56 PM

48. What does that have to do with your contention that primaries are not elections now?

It seems to me that Debbie did pick the party's candidate, then Bernie came along and is screwing the whole thing up.
Too bad Bernie appeals to Democrats better than Hillary does. So much so that the DNC has to resort to dirty Republican tricks, like voter suppression, and bought off super delegates, to keep their candidate viable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:14 PM

53. I'm saying

 

there's nothing in the law to distinguish what happens now from what happened then. Because it has been opened up to a nationwide process involving voting, it gets misconstrued as a proper election. It isn't. The use of delegates and superdelegates should make that pretty clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:44 PM

61. Well, I do agree with you that the process is an improper election.

All too often the people's voice is not heard. Like when the winner, the one with the most votes, gets less delegates than the runner up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:07 PM

52. That is what I see as an open primary. You decide what

roster of candidates you want to vote for. In fact when I did that in Iowa it had nothing to do with registration to vote - it was about voting in the primary. If you chose to jump parties you could.

My part of Iowa was very red. In order to vote for who was going to run for local offices many of us would ask for the R ballot because local offices were running unopposed. My Democratic grandfather actually ran for sheriff on the R ticket because that was the only way he had any hope of winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:04 PM

95. How far in advance of the primary should they have to register?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #95)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:07 PM

97. Good question

 

Honestly, I haven't given a lot of thought to an exact date. But there are definitely two categories. New voters can get close to the election day, but I would prefer it to be cut off early enough that the state can make sure the registrations are valid before votes are cast.

For party switching, I would want the deadline to be early enough to dissuade chicanery. Six months is on the long end, sure, but I don't like the idea of Republicans being able to switch the week before the election much either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #97)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:14 PM

99. What percentage of Republicans are switching parties to meddle in Democratic party primaries?

Do you have a figure handy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:37 PM

20. I am beginning to think that this is a parody/satire account. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:45 PM

62. Agree agree agree

Open primaries could be an absolute disaster .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:33 PM

12. Open primaries in every state.

 

Folks can choose to vote in both R AND D Primary, Just R or Just D or none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigwillq (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:44 PM

29. Don't forget the rest of the smaller parties

 

It should be absolutely and 100 percent open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:34 PM

13. I understand...

 

you like the feeling of being in an exclusive club. Like a Country Club...or a church or religion.

Unfortunately it's not a very liberal view point. Can't brag about our big tent if our big tent doesn't allow people we dont approve of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddyblazon (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:36 PM

19. You do realize...

 

that a big tent provides cover for people who *gasp* actually get under the tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:43 PM

28. You do realize that...

 

*gasp* these people are asking to come into our tent.

"I told them we are an exclusive club and I won't let them into our tent. That's why they have no say."


You should also understand that so goes the independent vote...so goes the GE. But enough with those pesky facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddyblazon (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:49 PM

33. But they aren't

 

They're essentially asking to come in, use the bathroom, tell us how to decorate, and then leaving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:16 PM

55. Well a lot of them might want to stay if they had been

welcomed.

Also your point made sense when we Democrats were the majority party. We aren't anymore. We need to know which candidate the independents and other parties are interested in and there is only one way to find out - let them vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:35 PM

14. Sorry, I'm for getting out the vote...

The Pugs ID laws, Gerrymandering, and the SC have done enough to suppress it.

I'm surprised to see a Dem make any case for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:35 PM

15. Presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all agree with you. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:38 PM

21. Good one!

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:36 PM

18. A perfectly reasonable post

 

I'm inclined to agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:39 PM

23. Funny, usually it's the pugs that push suppression...never has been a Dem view

Nothing surprises me any more in this forum anymore though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalon Sparks (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:45 PM

31. A closed primary system is not a form of voter suppression.

 

These aren't even actual elections. They are primaries which help to determine the nominee of a private political party.

The private political party gets to decide who their nominee will be. Delegates could nominate a ham sandwich if they wanted to.

IMO, it makes sense that Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:40 PM

46. It suppresses votes...

regiatered voters can't can't vote ='suppression

No way around it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:52 PM

65. In a 2 party system, its not a 'private' decision.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:20 PM

75. Hmm as long as the taxpayer helps fund you

 

Private party event. For the record since you claim to be from California, the Green Party and the Republican Party should not have any access to taxpayer funded admnistration of elections. I urge you to close the primary here, and we the taxpayers don't fund yours either. We're cool?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:38 PM

22. Why would the date of the election matter?

Are independents in some states more important than others? The republicans won't cross over to sabotage because of their own close primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheFarseer (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:41 PM

25. It depends on the scenario

 

Open primaries early can gauge who has support from outside the party, which can be helpful. And in years when both sides are nominating someone, it's likely that few will be crossing over.

Later in the process, the variables could increase the likelihood of party crashing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:39 PM

24. Those who want to guide and influence a political party should JOIN IT and PARTICIPATE!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:43 PM

27. Lol sure...

Because that's happened so many times, not.

Crossing over....lol.

Nonsense, historical it has been rare.

Suppression of votes is the only way Repubs win, we call them cheaters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:44 PM

30. Yeah, I never understood why people who refuse to register as Democrats get to decide which Dem

candidate should be at the head of our Party.

It doesn't make sense and it only opens a Party to rat-breeding of the worst kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:49 PM

32. Either all the primaries are open or they are all closed.

There is no way a hybrid can ever be fair.

Just have open primaries for every state and territory with candidates from both parties competing in them. That means voters could have chosen between Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley, Trump, Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Kasich. Paul, Christie, et cetera...

Eliminate party debates...

At the end the two leading candidates would have a run off...


Of course this is ridiculous, as ridiculous as letting folks vote in the primaries, regardless of what party they registered as.

Parties exist for a reason and that reason is to allow folks to separate themselves into groups and form consensuses and do political battle with other folks who have done the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:00 PM

36. The logic is obvious, but people just won't see it.

I don't want a bunch of people from other parties mucking around with who chooses the Democratic candidate, and I'm pretty sure the GOP doesn't want it for the Republicans either.

I did see someone suggest that people could register for two parties, as they do in the UK (I think it was the UK). That makes much more sense to me - it would be inclusive and it would allow people who really do take a stance between, say, the Democrats and the Green Party, more chance to participate.

But the opportunity for mischief in a close race in an open primary is real, and it should scare people. There's a reason the rules exist. Should they be more uniform? Of course. But I see nothing wrong with asking for some shred of evidence that you really support the party on whose behalf you're making a choice for a presidential candidate.

We happen to have two candidates this year, in emotionally charged elections, who are outliers for the parties they're running for. It probably did expose flaws in the system. But it's pretty rich for Trump's kids to gripe that it's not fair that they can't vote in a Republican primary when they must have been well aware in October that they needed to register, or re-register, or whatever it is. For some reason even they, presumably well informed and with the means and motivation to make the change, didn't do it. I don't, however, see them as disenfranchised. They ignored the system.

I strongly support same day voter registration for the general election and for non-partisan primaries or other ballot initiatives, but the party primaries are a completely different animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:55 PM

67. Mischief?

 

Like when the GOP tried to sabotage Clinton so they could run against the 'easy to beat' Obama instead?

Voters trying to pull shenanigans isn't new, but it doesn't happen anywhere near enough to worry about it, and it backfires as often as not anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:28 PM

81. It is extremely rare

 

Like the aliens voting in US elections or other forms of voter fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:26 PM

79. I am cool as long as the tax payer does not get stuck

 

With administering this. You want to close them I urge you to just do it. Please. But don't ask the tax payer to find any of it. You get your own machines and all that and you rent the precincts. You know, run your own election. I mean the full enchilada. You want the state to subsidize it, MI and OR have it the right way. The former no party registration, 100 percent open. The latter vote by mail and the motor voter law.

US elections already fail to meet the standards we demand of others internationally. But have at it.

We're cool as long as state parties pay for it, 100 percent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:10 PM

39. people with no sense of committment are free to write in their candidate in the general election nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:16 PM

41. Closed Primaries

 

You are kidding me right? You want to prevent a whole block of people from voting because they are not registered with a party? Then you won't need independents for the general. How do you think Obama won? That's fine. I'm sure the Republican party will welcome independents.

People should be free to vote for whomever they and not to protect the status quo. That's why politicians don't do shit for the people. They are protected and not challenged.

If you want to shut out outside influence, then get rid of super delegates and tell your candidate to stop being beholden to big money. Super delegates were put into place to keep the status quo candidates in office. That is not democracy. How's that working out?

Bernie has proven, you do not need a super pac to raise money.

God, you Hillary supporters are so drunk from the kool aid........


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmousso75 (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:19 PM

43. I've supported closed primaries since I started voting.

 

It has nothing to do with Hillary. It's entirely to do with my belief that a party should be able to pick their own candidate, should they want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:56 PM

47. I agree, how about your party pays for it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:22 PM

44. I don't think this is a very liberal idea. As a

 

matter of fact, it's kinda authoritarian with limited political freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:27 PM

45. I agree

Republicans should not be allowed to come in and vote for the person they think they can beat in November. You can call them "independents" if you want, but most of them who do come and vote will NOT be voting for the Democrat come November.

I also am willing to bet that if all these so called "independents" were voting for Hillary and not Bernie, the same posters here who are so willing to "let them in to vote" would be screaming to keep them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:58 PM

49. Wrong but you knew that

 

This said, have your private election. How about YOUR party pays for it? By the way, so should any other party with a closed primary. Not tagging on to regular elections or using state equipment. We are cool with that. In fact, I urge you to do that in every state and territory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:01 PM

92. I support Bernie in a state that allows you to ask for either ballot

 

regardless if you are a independent, republican or democrat and I think that's the way it should be. So your last sentence is incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:16 PM

54. It used to make the most sense to not let women vote. So much for

sense. People get an idea they should be allowed to particpate in one of the party's primaries when the duopoly parties create conditions that make the creation of a viable third party nearly impossible.

http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/nader.htm

<edit>

Richard Winger, who publishes Ballot Access News (www.ballot-access.org), does a formidable job of chronicling these outrages. Among the crippling provisions encountered during election 2000, consider these:

*To qualify for the ballot in Texas, a political party needed to collect 37,713 signatures in a seventy-five-day period; those who signed the petition could not have voted in the state's primary.

*In North Carolina, a party needed 51,324 signatures by May 15 of the election year. By statute, the petition has a must-carry phrase that reads "The signers of this petition intend to organize a new political party. . . ." To contemplate the chilling effect, simply ask yourself: When was the last time you signed something that would require you to commit to organizing a new political party?

*In Virginia, a candidate needs 10,000 signatures, four hundred from each congressional district. Circulators there can only petition in the county they live in and an adjacent county.
In Illinois, a new party needs 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot, while "established parties" only need 5,000 signatures.

*In Oklahoma, 36,202 signatures are required for a candidate to qualify for the ballot. With a population of 3,350,000, Oklahoma ranks 28th in the nation in population, but its total signature requirement is the fourth highest in the United States and the highest per capita in the country.

*Oklahoma (along with South Dakota) doesn't allow write-in votes, which strikes us as a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Those are just the raw number barriers. But there are also excessive filing fees, early deadlines, and administrative hurdles. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state requires signature forms on special colored paper; it only provided four hundred forms though our volunteers needed more than two thousand. The state would not accept forms downloaded from the Internet. In West Virginia and Georgia, the filing fee is $4,000! In Michigan, petition forms had to be on odd-sized paper (8-1/2 by 13 inches).

In many states, our petitioners were harassed and threatened with arrest by officials with a shallow understanding of the First Amendment for circulating petitions in public places or taxpayer-financed parks and recreation areas. In Mississippi, the mayor of Tupelo stopped our petitioners from working in the town square at a festival on the Fourth of July. In Ohio, our petitioners were stopped from collecting signatures at a public market in West Cleveland. The reports from our volunteer petitioners were profiles in courage.

Of course, the Green Party is not the only one to face this challenge. The Libertarian Party the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party, and the Constitutional Party . . . all of the third parties have to go through this charade every time they seek to compete with the established duopolists. What happens when progress is made? The Democrats and Republicans who control the state assemblies and legislatures just run back into session to make the hurdles tougher.

more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:22 PM

57. Based on the subject line of this OP alone I assumed I would see a red arrow pointed to the right...

.. in the body of the post.

I was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:28 PM

60. Sense of "millenial" entitlement and lack of seriousness?

 

Where do people get the idea that they have the right to participate in a party, when they aren't members of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:09 PM

73. Look close them everywhere

 

Yup private party function. Guess what? No primary during my June election. No use of any public goods, including machines or registrars. You pay for it 100 percent. Talk about entitlement. By the way this should apply to any party that decides to run a closed primary. We're good with that.

You get to run your club, and the tax payer doesn't get stuck with it. Agreed.

I suspect that once state parties realize the cost, with no public subsidy whatsoever...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:47 PM

84. Good luck changing your state constitution

It's spelled out very clearly in your state constitution: The parties have the choice of an open or closed primary. Spit in one hand and wish with the other, nothing is going to change in the immediate future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #84)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:49 PM

85. Yes they do, and we have a choice of subsiding them or not

 

and the precedent is there.

Of course, you are acting like Mr Spanos, and the rest of the NFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #85)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:21 PM

100. Subsiding?

Your state constitution mandates the primary. Deal with it, or change it.



I understand Mr Spanos favors a hefty poll tax to keep the unwashed away from the polls on election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:24 PM

101. My state constutition does not madate we pay for it

 

and trust me, the precedent is there. DEAL WITH IT, as you said. Look into why we have not decoupled the primary from the June election. The two major parties were given THAT FUCKING CHOICE as long as they paid for it, IN FULL.

So having the primary paid by the parties, in closed primaries, meets the constitutional requirement. You deal with it.

I guess people are starting to realize that folks are getting tired of the double standards, By the way since CA is actually running an OPEN democratic primary, you deal with it as well.

But I insist, CLOSE 'em, and you pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:53 PM

66. I was a registered Independent.

I wanted to vote for a Democrat this election. My state , PA, is a closed primary state.

So, I went to the courthouse several months ago and changed my registration to Democrat.

Simple . Easy. Everyone can do it.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:00 PM

68. OK, then. They should all be closed primaries...with SAME-DAY re-registration.

 

There is no good reason for NY to have put the deadline for re-registration of existing voters six MONTHS prior to the primary. No justification for that at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:14 PM

74. Is same-day feasible in large population centers?

We do it in my tiny northeast state, but that may put a bit of a strain on places like New York, Texas, California, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:31 PM

82. You might have heard of the Internet

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #82)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 05:29 PM

106. Like y'all love saying to Hillary; "Watch your tone, dear"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #106)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 05:38 PM

108. Sorry but I ain't changing a thing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:07 PM

96. All you need is a registrar at the voting stations.

 

You could also set it up to have same day online registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #96)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 05:29 PM

107. As long as it does not hamper the overall process, that'd be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:46 PM

83. Go for it.

 

Close them all. The Democratic Party can pay for them. No more tax dollars towards a process that not all American's can participate in and voting is one of the most important.

Then once you have done that, y'all can STFU with your whining when you lose. We independents won't vote for Clinton. She will lose but hey y'all will have party purity and your own little special party.

Yes, oh please, yes, let's play this game out to the conclusion of said events, I relish the opportunity to laugh my ass off at the Democratic Party come November when they lose not only the White House but more seats all the way down ticket. Why should we vote for any Democrat if they are going to treat us like shit? Fuck that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:52 PM

86. Hey the Rs have been playing the purity game

 

here in CA, (which leads the nation in independents) and god they are having trouble keeping the lights on.

I urge them... we agree.

And what I noticed is that once we said go ahead, close them, we ain't paying for them, they are starting to realize we are dead serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:54 PM

87. And given that level of discourse, why should Dems cater to you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:55 PM

88. I am urging you NOT TO CATER to the fastest growing

 

block of voters in the United States. Please don't cater, but you pay for your fracking party event m'kay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #88)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:00 PM

91. So you're saying...

 

that independent voters have never considered the meaning of the term, and don't know that being independent means that they are, by definition, independent of some of the party level process that goes on? If independents are so proud of being independent, it shouldn't matter that they don't get all the benefits that party members do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #91)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:02 PM

94. Like we said, close it down.

 

Make it an exclusive member's only club. Don't ask us for money. Don't expect our taxes to pay for your club. And sure as fuck don't expect us to get in line, hold our noses, vote the lesser of two evils, and 'unify' with your asses to get one of yours elected.

Simple really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #91)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:10 PM

98. What I am saying is that you do not understand why it is the fastest growing block

 

but since you insist, I agree with you. The California Supreme Court agrees with you. I am just asking you that you do not burden the state with the running of your election. You do not get to play on our regularly scheduled June Election, (obviously not this year) and you get to run the full thing. You do understand why neither the Ds or the Rs accepted the offer from the state to decouple from the June Election, right? I know too much inside baseball, The cost. They did math... I know a thing... and it costs millions to run your primaries. The only reason the cost is less is that you happen to be on my machines, as a tax payer they belong to me and every other tax payer in the state, with silly shit like Prop I, the mayoral election, city hall. Things like that. Otherwise, your election would be through the roof. Imagine having to rent all those rooms for the precincts? I am almost betting on a caucus at that point. They are cheaper to run.

So you want a private party event run, I am sure it is time to have a nice class action as to why the voters should not fund any political party in the state, yes we are going to be nice and include all, that has a closed primary. If you have an open primary, sure come along.. we should be working to increase, not depress participation.

You can decide to inform the SOS that you do want to have a closed primary, it is after all, in the Constitution. The consequences should clearly be, that we as tax payers don't pay for it. Trust me, the Greens and the Rs will open their primary as well. It is real dollars and cents. But you want to be a private entity with your own private affair, pay for it.

You are claiming to be a private entity, fine, we both agree. Private businesses, unless they are the NFL, don't get such large subsidies. By the way, I understand why this is an impossible concept to get if you own an NFL team, or any other professional level sports team.

For the record, CA has an open primary for the Ds at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #87)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:00 PM

90. Because the Democratic Party

 

needs me. I don't need them.

It is just math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:28 PM

102. More from the "We got ours" crowd

 

What a joke. And so is Hillary Riding Coattails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #102)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:29 PM

103. Insightful commentary. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:31 PM

104. In New York, if someone was a registered independent

and after the first Presidential debate decided they wanted to switch to Democratic to vote Bernie it was already too late. That is completely absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Original post)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 05:00 PM

105. They make great sense for establishment candidates protecting against challengers

With registration dates 6 months ahead of the primary, they significantly disadvantage lesser known candidates compared to encumbents and political celebrities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread