Why would I want Republicans/Independents choosing the Democratic nominee?

[JaneyVee]

Its a Democratic Party primary, therefore Democrats should choose the party nominee.

Do you also get mad that you cant name other peoples children?

[JonLeibowitz]

1. The California Democratic Party disagrees. Did you ask them?

[NurseJackie]

10. Are you certain?

Wasn't there a deadline for voters to have to unregister for the AIP?

[JonLeibowitz]

30. Unaffiliated voters can choose on June 7

Edit: the P in AIP means they are members of a party. As such, they are not independents as far as the state of California is concerned.

[brush]

60. AIP means American Independent Party, Sarah Palin's husband's party affiliation (extreme wingers)

Why would we want them voting in the Dem primary?

What are you saying?

[JonLeibowitz]

68. Independents is a concept distinct from members of the AIP.

Most independents are not AIP and in the context of California it was very clear what I meant. If you ask the typical person what an independent voter is the response you'll get is a voter unaffiliated with a party. Just look at the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter). No mention of a fringe political party.

NurseJackie is not interested in an honest argument though.

[Scuba]

14. The Wisconsin Democratic Party disagrees too.

[Armstead]

2. Ius there a super secret initiation rite to be a Democrat?

Do you have to bite the head off a chicken or something?

[JaneyVee]

6. No, just check the box.

[Armstead]

13. Then what's your point?

Since it's that easy, why prevent people from making that decision on the day they vote?

What's so awful about someone saying IO like candidate A who's a Democrat, and I'd like to be able to vote for him or her in November?

And why is it wrong that a candidate like Bernie decides the democratic party is the venue of choice?

[JaneyVee]

24. Im all for making registration easier...

What Im not for is Republicans choosing the Democratic Party nominee.

[Armstead]

37. It would take a whole lot of republicans to do that...

and they generally have their own nomination battles to worry about and vote on...especially this year

[sheshe2]

36. You are an Independent?

[Armstead]

38. It was a rhetorical question

[sheshe2]

43. Just wondering why you are confused about State voting rules.

All States are different in their primary rules.

[Armstead]

45. I'm aware of that...It was a snarky response to the OP

[sheshe2]

47. You snark well.

[onehandle]

3. I've decided that you must paint your walls blood red.

And if you tell me that I'm attacking your rights, I will gang up on you on some random online forum and be mean to you.

[dlwickham]

4. I do if they're given stupid names

[AgingAmerican]

5. Because we finally have a nominee that attracts their votes

And his name isn't Hillary.

[JaneyVee]

8. Yes, because Democrats never won an election previously.

[AgingAmerican]

9. It's all about winning the General election

It isn't rocket science

[JaneyVee]

11. Obama won without independents or white males.

[AgingAmerican]

16. so no independents or white males voted for Obama?

Hilarious!!
Hillthink is very short sighted.

[Bjorn Against]

20. Really? That's odd because I am an independent white male and I voted for Obama twice

[JaneyVee]

22. Voting bloc's, bro, voting bloc's.

Think.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Do you really want to see Obama's vote totals if those voting blocs were removed?

Obama would not be President today if he did not have independent support, just because he did not win a majority of independents does not mean that the independents he did win were not absolutely crucial to his victory. Obama would have lost in a landslide if he had no independent or white male support.

[JaneyVee]

35. Well then I have some good news for you:

Whites males and Independents are most certainly allowed to vote in the 2016 general election. Spread the word!

[Bjorn Against]

40. Thanks, people like you have done a great job of convincing me to vote Green in the General Election

If you don't listen to Independents in the primary don't expect them to listen to you in the general.

[JaneyVee]

50. Why shouldnt I expect them to listen to me in the general?

[Bjorn Against]

53. I think the fact that you would ask such a question explains why they won't listen to you in the primary

And it explains why they won't listen to you in the general either.

[JaneyVee]

55. But Im all for them voting in the GE

[Bjorn Against]

57. I am sure you will be all for it when they decide to vote Green in the general

[JaneyVee]

59. Stop pretending you are the voice of the Independents...youre not.

Recent polls suggest a Hillary landslide. Huge leads in nearly every demographic.

[Bjorn Against]

61. I never claimed to be the voice of independents

I do know however that when you shut people out of the process you are less likely to get their support later on down the road when you need it.

[brush]

63. Independents come in all political stripes — some left-leaning, some moderate and some right-leaning

You can't speak for all of them.

Some will vote for Clinton and some for Trump.

The sensible left-leaning and moderates will vote for Clinton as they don't want the next 3 SCOTUS justices picked by a repug.

[GulfCoast66]

58. And the rules today

Are the same as in 08 and 2012. So nothing different. Hopefully you will again help keep a republican out of the WH.

[Scuba]

19. Not with only registered Democrats voting for them, no.

http://truthinmedia.com/poll-independents-will-soon-outnumber-republicans-and-democrats-combined/

... in 2014 the number of people self-identifying as independent was at 39 percent, passing that of Democrats (32 percent) and Republicans (23 percent).

[JaneyVee]

21. Great, thats the general election...

Which has nothing to do with choosing the Democratic Party nominee.

[Scuba]

25. Your post said "Yes, because Democrats never won an election previously."

You certainly weren't referring to Democratic primaries in which ONLY Democrats win.

And our side will not win the GE without the help of independents. We should be welcoming them to our side, not telling them they don't count. Or don't you want to win?

[JaneyVee]

27. Yes, I welcome them to vote in the General Election.

All for it.

[Scuba]

29. But apparently you think they should have no say in who gets the nomination.

Some welcoming.

[JaneyVee]

32. Sounds reasonable.

Its a Democratic Party nomination.

[brush]

65. If you're on our side, join the party, already and you won't have these problems.

[Scuba]

72. I live in an open primary state, so the only "problem" I have is watching ...

... the Democratic Party lose and lose and lose.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. I want to be honest about something.

If the Republicans foolishly decide to let me vote in their primaries, I won't be voting with their best interest in mind. . .

[NanceGreggs]

31. Oh, no, no ...

I was advised here on DU that Republicans would "never" vote in a Democratic primary in order to manipulate the outcome to their advantage.

So you shouldn't do it either.

[Bleacher Creature]

71. I guess I'm just a bad person.

I recognize that open primaries are a lynchpin to the functioning of our democracy - so much so that they're not contemplated at all in any of our founding documents - but I just can't help myself.

I'm just thankful that all those well-meaning Republicans and "independents" who want to vote in our primary aren't the deviants that I am.

[Jester Messiah]

12. Because they vote in the GE

And whoever gets the most votes wins. Surely they covered this when you were in school?

[JaneyVee]

15. So then whats the problem? They get to vote in the GE. Good.

What does that have to do with choosing the Democratic Party nominee?

[AzDar]

17. Like Debbie WantsToRigIt-Schultz... I'm sure their votes aren't wanted in the General, as well...

Smart!

[JaneyVee]

18. They sure can vote in the GE.

[sheshe2]

41. No one said that. nt

[Garrett78]

23. Question for everyone:

Can we all agree that some manipulative, disingenuous people vote in open primaries even though they don't actually support the person for whom they are voting?

[JaneyVee]

26. Of course. Plenty of them.

[Garrett78]

34. I really have no idea how many.

But it'd be foolish to think they don't exist.

[Armstead]

39. They certainly exist...But they have their own nomination fights to worry about

The vast majority of them aren't going to want to waste their votes just to mess with democrats

[Garrett78]

44. Depends on the state and the circumstances.

In some states, it's going to be more important to try and get a win for your preferred candidate (or to vote against the person you fear winning your party's nomination).

In other states, manipulating the opposition's results is going to be more productive.

[Armstead]

48. True...But the point is sorta like the GOP and their barriers to voting

They use the excuse of "Voter fraud" to push discriminatory laws that favor them in elections. Even though actual fraudulent voting is very rare.

It can be said that the same applies to primary voting. Should the comparatively small number of people who will cross party lines just to cause mischief be balanced against the benefit of giving greater access to people who get excited about a candidate but have not declared for a party previously?

[Garrett78]

54. I'm not sure how small the number is.

Voter fraud in the general election is, as you say, rare. It's not so clear how rare manipulation is in open primaries/caucuses, because what we're talking about isn't actually fraud. It's perfectly legal. I don't think either of us can say how much legal manipulation takes place.

[Armstead]

56. It probably varies depending on the particular election

This year, I'm pretty sure the average Republican is more concerned with either stopping Trump or supporting him than they are with the Democratic primaries.

[Garrett78]

62. Sure, it varies by election just as it varies by state.

Another factor could be whether or not a primary is winner-take-all, as some Republican primaries are. In a state where preventing a Trump win is conceivable or there's a hometown guy in the running, you'll probably see less crossover. I'm thinking of Ohio, for instance. In Michigan, a pretty similar state, those factors weren't as evident.

It should be noted that manipulation is also possible in closed contests. People can register with a party for the sole purpose of taking place in that party's primary, even though they won't be voting for any of that party's candidates in the general election.

[Armstead]

64. If I were king..The process would be uniform and straightforward across the country

[Garrett78]

69. Same here.

I'm just not sure what that process would be, as far as open vs. closed. I guess I lean toward open, even though I see it as problematic.

I would definitely do away with caucuses.

All Republican primaries would use proportional delegate allocation.

And I would have 4 groupings of 12-13 states with each group voting 1-2 months apart. Each group would be representative of every region of the US. And the groups would rotate every election (or the make-up of the groups would change every election).

I'm not sure what to do about the fact that multiple alternatives to the frontrunner (assuming there is one, as there usually is) will inevitably split the vote. Perhaps there could be 2 rounds of primaries and those below a certain threshold after round 1 must drop out. But that'd make the process even longer than it already is. So maybe those below a certain threshold after that first group of 12-13 states have voted would be forced to drop out. I don't want anyone to be silenced, but the frontrunner is at a big advantage when the other candidates split the vote. Of course, Obama was able to overcome that problem in '08.

As for Puerto Rico, Wash. DC, overseas folks et al., I'd have 1 or 2 in each grouping of 12-13 states.

Lastly, I'd probably do away with superdelegates, though I suppose they serve a purpose in the event no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegates (not an issue this year obviously).

[NanceGreggs]

33. No.

I was told right here on DU several weeks back that Republicans would never participate in a Dem primary in order to manipulate the outcome.

And I can see where that was coming from - because the GOP is known for upholding fair voting practices at all times.

[hellofromreddit]

42. Because party purity tests are bullshit.

It's kind of funny that the people crying for party purity are the same people trying to paint Bernie as the extreme one. He's the only candidate with cross-party appeal.

This purity nonsense does nothing but select for the weakest or craziest candidates. The republicans are a glimpse of the end-game of that strategy.

[Garrett78]

46. Either he's well to the left of Clinton or he genuinely has cross-party appeal.

I don't think both can be true. Republicans aren't known for supporting people on the left end of the political spectrum.

[JaneyVee]

52. Party purity tests are bullshit for whom?

[scscholar]

49. Independents haven't been paying attention...

which is why they're still independents. I certainly agree with you that I don't want them picking our nominee.

[moriah]

51. I have to say I agree.

I dislike open primaries. They allow Rethugligan ratfuckery to screw with our nominating process.

As I said, I registered Green Party when I lived in NY, because I wasn't as interested in the Democratic Party process as I was in what was an area with a thriving local Green Party -- and you build parties from the bottom up, not the top down. I knew that my 2004 GE vote would be "anybody but Bush", and of course voted Democrat in the 2002 Interim election for any non-local candidates (like Governor). I knew I was forefeiting my right to participate, had I actually been there for the 2004 primaries (my year there was memorable... barely missed the mass arrest on April 7, 2003).

Coming back to a state with only two parties and little support for extremely liberal views, I have been a registered Democrat ever since, even though Arkansas has open primaries.

I support instant runoff, or ranked choice, voting as the only way our current political system will ever change. I think our Party is far more resilient and will be influenced to the left rather than fracture if RCV is implemented. The GOP is far more fragmented, and if we can all agree to stop the fights about social issues and all our Party has to do is speak for those in poverty and the underserved and "aim before we shoot" vs defend the right to live one's own life as one chooses, too... it'd be a lot less gridlock in Washington.

But if we are going to have parties at all, they must be allowed to make their own rules. Each state Party determines their primary/caucuses rules, and any changes that need to be made (a definite -- fix the voting on Saturday only issue in states that chose that day) can be made by those who are now joining the Party because of Bernie, and those who have always been Democrats can do the same.

For the next time.

But the rules are what they are, what they were when Bernie agreed (or, possibly more likely, drafted kicking and screaming a little at least at first) to run as a Democrat.

And they included caucuses, open, semi-open, and closed primaries.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Because you are required to post the daily horseshit?

[JaneyVee]

67. A post about primaries in a primaries forum?

Oh the horror!

[JonLeibowitz]

70. I noticed you dodged Post #1. What's the matter, trouble answering it?

[Recursion]

73. Because the general election includes independents and Republicans

I mean it's a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't scenario, but I can see the argument in both directions. Can you not?