2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClosed primaries make zero sense since they ignore the majority of the electorate.
Closed primaries mean that 40% of the voting electorate is unable to participate in the nomination process. If the independents do not like the nominee they won't show up to vote in the general.
To ignore a 3rd of the nation in the primary process is counterproductive in the GE.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)for GE losses.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)They shut out people who simply cannot attend at that time.
A party's primary should be for the members of that party. If you want to vote in the DP primary, first join the party and change your affiliation thereafter if you'd like.
The Democratic Party is not the Democratic-Independent Party. And it shouldn't be.
I hope that the DP will increase the number of primaries nationwide and limit them to party members.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)you can vote by mail.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Csainvestor
(388 posts)you can caucus by mail in WA state. Many people did this. You don't even have to show up.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
Csainvestor
(388 posts)my point is about an open primary or caucus.
closed primaries and caucus contests make no sense.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I didn't realize the subject had been changed! 
--imm
scscholar
(2,902 posts)I received my ballot last Saturday, and it isn't due until May 24th, but that hasn't stopped the media from calling the election.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)In my state, I would have loved to do that but I couldn't. So we spent 2 very disorganized hours to complete the process.
They just don't work well in states with a large population. Way too cumbersome for voters and those who run them.
msongs
(67,394 posts)then. if 40% of the electorate chooses not to register for a party they have self-selected themselves out of the process
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Right now some 42% of the general population of voters doesn't feel kindly toward either party.
Because both parties have became the major subsidiary of The One Big Money Party.
No one has "self selected" themselves out of a party. Rather, the Democratic Party has made a legend out of Rahm Emanuel for his spending countless hours and oodles of "D" Party money intimidating progressive candidates, launching hard hitting and untruthful campaigns against them in the Primaries and making sure that the only people we have to vote for are RW neo cons in bed with Big Banks, Big Military and Big Surveillance.
For his hard work, Rahm was awarded the "White House Chief of Staff" position in 2009.
By suggesting that we simply avail ourselves of our right to vote in November, you are indicating it is fine with you to remain enslaved to the system of having our candidates be neo con Corporate Bought and Paid for Oligarchs, who could care less about the Middle Class.
But most people are not fine with it at all.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It's made it a solid Democratic state, and the corruption in our politics has been much abated. Our state budget is sound enough that people are berating Gov. Brown for being a skinflint over his full rainy day fund.
We also passed a law that removes redistricting from the control of the legislature, and we like that here too.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I really don't think that that alone is responsible for making CA solidly democratic. Redistricting was actually promoted by Schwarzenegger and fought tooth and nail by the Democrats at first, until a different approach using citizen panels was adopted, which I am sorry to say has been hijacked by the Democratic party to some extent, which hijacking I expect to backfire following the next census in 2020.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)The Democrats that didn't like it have moved on or dealt with it. We got a lot of new blood, and that was the idea.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you seem to have a problem wth that. We Californians also like the state level modified run off system. It should be a model for the country.
LisaM
(27,800 posts)That's their prerogative, but it's also a choice. People from smaller parties and Independent candidates are on the Presidential ballot all the time. Jill Stein will probably be on lots of ballots. Pat Buchanan was on ballots. Ron Paul was on ballots. Nader, unfortunately, was on ballots.
Nothing, nothing, precludes people from joining a party and voting in its primary, other than personal choice.
I'm not sure why I jumped at the bait here, because I'll be swarmed, but as a lifelong Democrat, I'd really prefer that people from other parties don't decide who we get to put on the ballot.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)30% of the nation belongs to one party. and the nominee of that party was chosen by 55 or 60% of that 30%.
in the general election, the rest of the population has to pick or reject what a small minority has chosen for them.
if you don't know how the majority will react to your candidate, all that time, money and energy spent on picking that person in the first place was a complete waste of time.
hack89
(39,171 posts)If they want to help pick the Democratic party nominee they need to join the party. If the "rest of the population" is unhappy with their choices then they need to get off their asses, get involved and help select candidates that they like.
you make zero sense.
if i want to sell something to the nation, i want to make sure that the nation likes what i am selling.
closed primaries held by a small minority does not equate success in the general election.
hack89
(39,171 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)primary, or start your own party and phone bank, do signage, canvass door-to-door, drive people to the polls, fund raise, any number of things to help the candidate of your party.
Nothing hard about that. That way people who have joined and worked in a party for their candidate won't feel resentment at people who haven't done work want to barge in and say "I want this guy because I'm one of the 40% who demand a say but can be bothered to do any of that party work stuff."
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)It's so much easier to forget to do this and then bitch and moan about it when the results aren't what you want them to be.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)forget bernie hillary i am making a larger point.
30% of the nation is dem, 30% is con, the rest is neither.
the winner of the nomination is half of the party right- half of that 30% to begin with.
why would you expect the majority of the nation to pick or like someone that only 15% of the nation choose for them in a closed process? winning in a closed primary doesn't mean you can or will win in GE.
If a business tried to bring new products to market in the way we pick nominees they would go out of business.
LisaM
(27,800 posts)
I think it's just a dandy idea to let Republicans and Socialists decide who the Democrats run. You've explained it to me now! I see the light! I was just being dense before!!!
otohara
(24,135 posts)I hate all this name calling.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)If you get too dense, you will sink to the center of the earth, and melt.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)The rest pretend to be neither while actually voting reliably one way or the other. If you vote for Democrats in every election but are somehow offended by having a D next to your name, then that's your problem. Either don't be involved in the primary or grow up and register as a Democrat. But don't whine about it.
And for the record, this is exactly how business bring new products to market! It's called a focus group. You bring together people who are likely to choose your product and get their opinion. You don't want to ask cyclists for their opinion on the new car you're developing. That's just dumb.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Voter registration requirements make zero sense since they ignore the majority of the citizenry.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Restrict political options to only two, both of which happen to be controlled by the oligarchy.
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)The Dems and the GOP are just the largest parties. You have a right to form another party and work for its success. You could also work for the Liberty Party, Green Party, Conservative Party, etc.
WhiteTara
(29,699 posts) leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and have your own primary. Nothing at all stopping you. Those $27 donations will no doubt carry you the whole way.
casperthegm
(643 posts)Funded by the 1% and elite, but yeah, it's not a bad idea. At least there would be a party that actually represents the people, like the Democratic party was supposed to do.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)If only 15% of the nation gets to pick something during the primary, how can you then say the larger segment that didn't get to pick during the closed primary process agrees with winner of the nomination process?
you will only find out during the general if your nominee is liked.
this line of thinking is ignorance wrapped in stupidity. a business wouldn't sell something the way we pick nominees.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it would be too easy for others to in essence do a hostile takeover of the party by swamping their primary with outsiders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)See the Republican Primaries of 2008, but more, 2012. His band of libertarians almost pulled it off.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)We keep hearing 'Vote Blue no matter Who' but why would we pledge an allegiance to a candidate we had no say in nominating?
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)If u r a Democrat, and which ever Democrat nominee wins--- that who Democrats usually vote for...
Jbradshaw120
(80 posts)People want to be independent. If I'm listed as dem in the general I'm taken for granted and ignored. If I'm listed as independent I'm asked for my vote. Thankfully montana doesn't register by party.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts) 
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Start a party for that 40% you mention and you will quickly find out you really don't know what an independent is.
Outside of primaries, I'm an independent(NPA). Proud Clinton supporter here.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)your nominee will lose the GE.
asking a small percentage of the nation, maybe 20% to pick a nominee doesn't tell you how the GE will react to your closed primary pick.
you wouldn't try to sell a new product in this fashion.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It doesn't take a majority of the electorate to win an election, it takes a majority of the vote. The two aren't the same in any way.
I really don't think you know what an independent is.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)For the establishment and powers that be.
If the Democratic primaries had all been open primaries, Clinton would have already lost by now.
Can't be having that, can we?
LisaM
(27,800 posts)The circular logic is really something.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Clinton has won more open primaries than Sanders has. Sanders doesn't do well in primaries.
He has won more caucuses than Clinton, closed or open.
Open primaries won by Clinton:
Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio are all open primaries that Clinton won.
Open primaries won by Sanders:
Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana.
So please stop spreading nonsense that Sanders would be winning if there were more open primaries. Even if you add the closed and semi-closed primary states that Sanders has won, it still doesn't add up to the number of open primary states Clinton has won.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I see this lie repeated constantly by Sanders supporters.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)But who's counting?
casperthegm
(643 posts)It's shrinking, now down to 29% of registered voters. The idea that keeping the same strategy and expecting a different trend in voter registration is...kinda dumb. But hey, keep calling young, progressive voters naive kids who only want free stuff, and keep independents from participating. What could go wrong?
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)And quickly. 36%, based on multiple polls and not just one, hand-picked poll everyone keeps quoting.
Here ya go: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification
casperthegm
(643 posts)Shrinking. It's no wonder either, considering its love for excluding potential voters that it should be trying to attract.
Here you go; http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
Karma13612
(4,549 posts)Could it be that the reason the Dem party is growing again is because Bernie is on the Dem ticket and voters are forced to register in closed primary states so they CAN vote for Bernie.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)That's the system. In some places, they're open and they're closed in others. Get involved in your state's party organization and you'll have input into the nominating method. Don't and you won't. It's that simple.
Our Presidential elections are party elections. That's going to be almost impossible to change, without a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. Political parties are independent organizations, not government organizations. In reality, anyone can run for President, but only two parties are really relevant in electing the President.
Parties choose the nominees. People vote for President, based on those choices. There are several national political parties, but only two that can effectively present presidential nominees.
Parties set their own rules. If you don't like the rules, either join the party and have input into those rules or start your own party and adopt the rules you prefer.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that was not of concern prior to this primary season.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)messing with their nominations. When they are closed the loser whines about voter suppression. On and on it goes.....either way Bernie lost.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)all it takes is a token effort to enroll in the party for the duration of the primary season in your state
they also fail to participating by not filing to place an independent candidate on the ballot..
They could even choose to run for office themselves.
If only they chose to participate
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)entitled to have their primaries. They should all be closed to the members of the party, the decision to register in a party is a personal choice. Primaries are not general elections, the ignore is made by those who do not register into the DNC or GOP, if a third has ignored the choice between the parties, then it is on that person.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)let me try to use an example.
Cons are 30% of the nation.
Dems are 30% of the nation.
Remaining 40% is other.
Lets say Hillary wins 53% and Bernie wins 47% when its all said and done.
This means only 53% of that 30% has picked her to move forward. But because it's a closed process, you have no idea how the rest of the nation will vote in the general.
Lets use food as an example. If hillary is vanilla, and only 20% of the nation said they love vanilla, would you be surprised when the other 80% gets to vote, a majority might say they hate vanilla. They were never asked if they liked vanilla. So don't be surprised if they don't like it.
Are you going to spend billions of dollars trying to sell vanilla ice cream without finding out what the other 80% thinks about the taste? What kind of business would do this?
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Over 2/3rds of that 40% of "independents" lean consistently one way or the other. They just choose to call themselves independent for some other reason.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/
If I were going to spend billions of dollars trying to sell vanilla ice cream, I would do a focus group test among people who like vanilla ice cream or have a history of buying vanilla ice cream! That's just common sense. I don't care what chocolate lovers think of my vanilla ice cream!
Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #85)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Then sorry, that's on you. It's not dumb to leave out a small fraction of the electorate who has weird inscrutable reasons for not wanting to participate. It would be dumber to cater to them while inadvertently leaving the party open for that much larger percentage of republicans and R leaning indies who might want to screw with our primaries. Say in a situation like right now when their primary is already over.
If you secretly love vanilla but are ashamed to admit it and want to claim "no preference" then don't be mad that you don't get to vote in the vanilla lovers club's "vanilla of the year" contest.
Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #138)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)If you don't like the direction of the party, the easiest way to influence the direction is to vote in party primaries! What harm do you think personally comes to you by registering as a dem even if you don't agree with everything the party does? Isn't your vote more meaningful and more sacred than some meaningless arbitrary D next to your name on the voter rolls? If you can't sully yourself by registering as a dem then why would you ever want to vote for a democrat? That seems like more of a betrayal of your ideals. And if you never vote for democrats then why should you have any say in the party's primary?
Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #142)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I consider myself to the left of Sanders. I liked Nader in 2000 but the way that turned out quickly cured me of any interest in third parties. I would gladly vote green if there were ever a race where they were competitive. But living in CA, voting since 96, nothing like that has really come up yet.
LonePirate
(13,414 posts)Dems, Repubs, Indies, Greens, Libertarians, etc. all duke it out in a primary with the top two vote getters facing off in the GE.
Opening a primary to Independents only is still a closed primary.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)its that it doesn't make sense.
if 30% of the nation belongs to one party, and only 55% of that 30% get to pick a nominee, you have no idea how the rest of the people will react during the general.
LonePirate
(13,414 posts)It's then up to the voters if they decide to vote. No excuses for them then. Granted, there's no excuses for them now except their lame refusal to join a party.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)if you win closed primaries, you have no idea how an open electorate in the general will react to your candidate.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)pretty much blows the argument for open primaries.
madamesilverspurs
(15,800 posts)if it were suggested that Raiders fans should be allowed to choose the Broncos quarterback.
Did I say 'uproar'? Change that to 'bloodbath'.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)fans do not get to pick who plays on the team.
what i am bringing up here is very simple.
if you expect a small minority to pick a nominee for the majority, you have no idea which way the majority will react to your nominee in the general. this is a very stupid way to do business.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Political parties are private entities who set the rules about who they can participate in their nomination process. It is completely fair and democratic for parties to make these decisions.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)i am not disputing htat at all.
what i am saying is this is a stupid way to pick a general election candidate. In a closed primary, registered democrats may overwhelming pick a certain candidate. But it sucks to find out in an open election, non democrats hate that person.
If you need to sell something to a majority, you need to know if the majority wants to buy your product in the first place. holding a closed primary, you have no idea what people in hte open electorate think or want.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)and not be subject to favor-of-the-month popularity contests.
Otherwise, why have political parties at all? If this is something you oppose, then you're essentially a Scott Walker-esque anti-union clone. If you want in, join. Otherwise, go make your own.
but if non democrats don't like what democrats picked for them, they will pass.
and if you don't know what the general electorate wants, you will never win. so what good was the nominating process if you wind up losing in the general?
Tarc
(10,476 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)jamese777
(546 posts)I much prefer having a mix of closed primaries, open primaries, caucuses, and hybrid elections. Each type serves a different purpose and attracts different segments of the voting population.
There is nothing stopping any candidate who doesn't get a major party endorsement from running as an Independent or third party.
If all primaries were open there would be a lot more "mischief voting" by people who have no intention of voting for the party's candidate in the general election, voting in the primary just to mess with that party.
For example, in the West Virginia primary exit polls 39% of Sanders voters said they intended to vote for Trump in the fall. That's the problem with having nothing but open primaries.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I do believe that the ability to register to vote in a primary open or closed, should be an easy process. caucusing discourages and disenfranchises voters.
Comparing and contrasting the open primary in Michigan and the closed primary in NY the percentage of registered voters casting a vote were both i the low 30% category (34% for Michigan's open primary and 31% for NY closed) ..... the starker contrast is that of participation in primary vs caucus states .... In Washington state 5.8% of voters showed up and in Iowa 15.7% percent voted.
The caucuses held here last weekend were described in media reports as “packed” and “bursting at the seams.” Lines around the block were reported, as well as crowds in overflow rooms. It gave the feeling of massive civic engagement.
Should Washington dump its caucuses?
Do you think the two parties should switch to a mail-in primary system? Would that make you more likely to participate? Add your thoughts.
But in reality, only 5.8 percent of the state’s registered voters showed up. That means 94 percent of voters didn’t. Even the most moribund municipal election for, say, water commissioner, gets turnout rates five times that amount.
186,874 Iowans participated in the Republican caucus and 171,109 participated in the Democratic caucus, for a total of 357,983 or a turnout rate of 15.7% among those eligible to vote.
More than 2.5 million Michigan voters cast ballots in Tuesday's Michigan primary, the most since the era of the modern primary began in 1972.
Slightly more than 34 percent of registered voters cast a ballot, according to the Michigan Secretary of State office.
A total of 1,322,742 voters participated in the Republican primary, while 1,193,169 voted in the Democratic primary.
With 96 percent of precincts reporting, Democratic voters in New York had cast more than 1.7 million votes in Tuesday's primary. Considering there were just over 5.2 million registered Democratic voters in the state as of April 1, preliminary voter turnout rates for the Democratic primary topped 32 percent. Similar turnout rates seemed to occur on the Republican side. With 96 percent of precincts reporting, New York Republicans had cast some 800,000 votes, out of the more than 2.5 million registered Republican voters. That amounts to a turnout rate of about 31 percent.
Added on edit:
The open primary could also be viewed as bad for voter participation. Statistics show that voter participation in the United States was higher when people could only vote in the primary for their own party. In Hawaii, primary voter turnout fell from 74.6% in 1978 to 42.2% in 2006 after changing to open primaries which could be the result of many things—not just the move towards the open primary system.[4] The closed primary system had more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This led to people being more involved in the voting process. With the open primary, some argue, more voters become independent and are less likely to participate in the nominating or election processes.[3]
jamese777
(546 posts)I would be concerned if every state was a caucus state. But having some states hold caucuses is a good idea because caucuses attract the most active members of a political party who are dedicated enough to attend a caucus meeting.
Only 57.5% of eligible voters showed up to vote or turned in an absentee ballot for the general election in 2012.
There are an awful lot of people who are just plain apathetic about politics.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Your point about overall apathy is valid (and very disheartening) , but the stark contrast btw participating voters in caucus vs primary states disturbs me. i do belleive a significant percentage of voters would ike to participate but cannot in caucus states.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jamese777
(546 posts)Than Republicans or Democrats. Independent voters should encourage strong, well known independents to run.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Their doors for the Democrats to influence their candidate pick, nor have we ever had this issue until a non Democrat steps into our party and decides that he must change it for its "soul" and be the one to fix it.
Want to fro in the Democratic party? Register as a Dem.
This is all about Sanders, all the time, not following rules, being picked on, treated unfair, not his fault and I am way ass tired of it.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)(I do realize its wiki, but ... )
The open primary could also be viewed as bad for voter participation. Statistics show that voter participation in the United States was higher when people could only vote in the primary for their own party. In Hawaii, primary voter turnout fell from 74.6% in 1978 to 42.2% in 2006 after changing to open primaries which could be the result of many things—not just the move towards the open primary system. The closed primary system had more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This led to people being more involved in the voting process. With the open primary, some argue, more voters become independent and are less likely to participate in the nominating or election processes.
If you compare and contrast the voter participation in open and closed primary states it appears to be pretty equal (as far as percentage of registered voters voting).
frazzled
(18,402 posts)as a Democratic Party voter according to the rules and by the time stated in your state's regulations. It's as simple as that. People who ignore the rules (they differ state by state) and then complain they have been "disenfranchised" don't really have a legal leg to stand on.
As people have noted above, primaries (unlike a general election) are contests for each political party to choose the nominee they wish to put forth in a general election. And yes, things change over time. And it's probably time they change again. As more independents started to emerge on the scene several decades ago (and several presidential contests were beset by third party candidacies), primaries started to open up in an attempt to engage these people, and prevent them from voting third party. That's kind of reached a peak that has backfired, especially in the Republican primary, where Independent voting has led to the presumptive nomination of Donald Trump, and left the party in shambles. Now that independents outnumber either party, it's time to move back to a more closed system for each party and let these more numerous independents form their own party or parties, to choose their own candidates. With the power of numbers, they certainly shouldn't be afraid to do that. Besides, don't you want the parties to be clearly defined?
(This is a sort of dare.)
Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)That all primaries are now open and superdelegates are no more. Now let's say a Jim Webb type (open to voting for Trump, defended Confederate flag, etc.) decides to run for president and connects with the same base that Trump has. He starts doing well in these primaries because more independents are voting for him and the Republican Party is in such shambles that some of their voters choose to influence our primaries instead. Plus with no superdelegates, there is no backup plan.
You may think this wouldn't happen, but I'm sure Republicans thought the same thing before this election.
Primaries are (or should be) for registered party members for a reason. If someone feels so strongly about not registering with a political party, so be it. But they don't get to determine the nominee of that party.
I don't get to vote for the governor of a state I'm not registered in. But I do get a say if I move there. It's simple.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)We are seeing evidence of the mischief and havoc that can be reaped now that Trump has secured the GOP nomination. A large percentage of those who voted for Bernie in West Virginia don't plan to vote for him in the GE. They are manipulating the process. If you don't like the rules that join another party. Frankly, I'm pissed off with the State of California, and I will be active following this election in making sure that we in California have a closed primary the next time around. California's ballot is going to be screwed up due to other changes made unrelated to the open/closed issue, which is going to screw up the GE. Many people don't even know about the changes, until I point them out to them, and people are not going to get the desired outcome, because for most people the first hint that there has been a change to the voting process, will come on election day, why by then will be too late.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)They are primaries to determine the nominee of their respective party.
What primaries do is provide more access by party members to help determine their nominee. The alternative is to eliminate all primaries and state parties hold conventions that conduct the nomination election. It would then be open only to party activists.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)29% dems
16% dem leaning independents
26% GOP
14% GOP leaning indie
12% "real" independents
So which group do we want to choose the nominee? the 29%, or the 16%? Or the 12% that might be "swing voters" or might be greens and libertarians and other people who are never ever going to vote for our nominee anyway?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/
Csainvestor
(388 posts)John Kerry did much better in the 2004 primary than Hillary is doing now. Yet he still lost to the worst president in modern history.
Do you think the closed primary process worked when it chose Kerry?
Would you rather a candidate that looks strong (paper tiger) selected in a closed primary, or a candidate that does better in a general election?
You can't have both.
The closed primary selection process, does not, and will not guarantee a general election win.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)That's an impossible bar to meet! And I never thought Kerry was a strong candidate. But if you look at exit polls from the 2004 primaries, it looks like independents in open primary states were largely for Edwards! So I guess we actually dodged a bullet there.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)to help choose the Democratic nominee is stupid. But, that's just me.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)And there's probably a large chunk of that other third (the 12% who say they don't lean either way) who will also never vote for a Democrat because they're committed greens, libertarians, LaRoucheites, communists, or whoever. Why should we cater to that 16% who are democrats but don't feel like registering for our party when letting them in also lets in that other 28% that represents people who will never vote for a Democrat?
Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #86)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)You want to vote in intra-party election? Join the party! Pretty simple. It's free. Anyone is welcome. Adults realize this. It's the independents who are childishly refusing to participate out of some kind of adolescent desire for indie cred.
So you say 25% of voters are dem leaning indies? Fine but that's still not a majority. Or a plurality if you want to get nit picky. Some people are trying to compare 29% dems to 40% indies as if all of those indie results are up for grabs but that's simply not the case.
Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #140)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)This is the first election in my lifetime where a candidate from outside the party has gotten so close to hijacking the nomination. It's weird that you refer to something that's been around for ages as being childish and then turn around and have this "take my crayons and go home" type of attitude of "see what happens without us".
It's also funny that you talk about psychology. In my opinion this "cater to us or else we'll blow the whole thing up" kind of psychology is really unappealing and never works.
It's all a bit of a moot point considering that Clinton has actually won the majority of open primaries! It's also interesting to note that Sanders himself realized that if he were to have any chance at running for president that he would have to finally join the party. And lo and behold working within the system has actually worked out well for him! It probably would have worked much better if he genuinely wanted to become a part of the part and help shape its future rather than fighting it at every turn and turning his supporters against it. But then I'm not totally convinced that he's not intentionally playing the role of naderesque spoiler who actually has no intention of changing the party.
BootinUp
(47,138 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Want to influence a party? THEN JOIN IT.
It is really simple.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)just making a very simple point.
If you pick a candidate who wins in a small closed primary, don't be surprised if that same person loses in an open general election. A for profit Business would never operate in this way.
It isn't any more complicated than that.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Allows the board of the target at their business agenda and pick their leaders ?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)GE they need to find out who is most electable to the most people. That is not what a closed primary does. If keeping the power in the hands of a few is the goal then you want a closed primary but if your goal is to win the GE then you had better be finding the candidate that is most likely to win voters outside the party structure.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I think that all primaries should be closed and caucuses shouldn't even exist in this day and age. Independents want to vote in their state's primary? Then let them have skin in the game and join a political party. If they want to remain unaffiliated they can wait until the general election to vote.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)you can't win an election without independants. and if you spend one billion dollars and run a campaign that lasts over one year, you want to win right?
but if you pick a nominee that democrats like, but independents hate, you think this is a winning system?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)As for being dumb, what's your campaign experience?
Csainvestor
(388 posts)that's it and thats all.
if you win a closed primary, you have won a closed primary.
would you rather a primary winner, or a general election winner.
that is what it comes down to.
John Kerry ran strong, he didn't even need super delegates to win. But he lost to bush. Why did he lose to Bush? Because Kerry did not win enough independent voters. Maybe if the primaries were open, we could have learned Kerry was a weak candidate before the general election.
If the primaries were open, perhaps Kerry would have lost the nomination, but another candidate might have won the General election.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Maybe another candidate would have also lost to Bush. We'll never know.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)what i am saying is the system is STUPID.
You don't roll out a national product, and only test demand within a closed primary.
Today, closed primaries make even less sense than they did in the past. There are more independent voters today. To totally ignore what independents want is an idiotic strategy. You can't win a GE with democrats alone.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)Just a thought.
JI7
(89,244 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)probably could have gotten a lot more if our primaries were open.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)You realize they're two different things?
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)And makes exactly zero sense.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Should you be allowed to decide who runs a club, church or corporation if you're not a member or a stockholder? Then, why should you have the right to decide who becomes the leader of a political party if you are not a member of that party?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)The left would do better with three or four exclusive clubs because the extreme right would be so hateful few would join. The extreme left would be so wonderful they could garner votes from centrist and centrist right. It would finally capture working people. The few who would be loyal to celebrity, name recognition, bigotry and brutality would be people ignorant of poicy(fans of celebrity) and corporatists.
Two parties make too many of us loyalists to one party. Having the NDP in Canada strengthens the left. Harper was finally sent packing and I don't think conservatism will return of quite a while up there. Down here we keep trying one then the other over and over and over. They are all corporatists now.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)in the country. But that is no longer true. Now all a closed primary tells us is how the minority of our party will vote.
Says nothing about who can win in the GE.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)You have succinctly summed up what i have been trying to say many times over.
And, I predict after this primary is over, there will be even fewer registered democrats.
A closed primary is the choice of a minority from a minority (hillary might win 53% of the vote out of 30% that register as dems), and then people wonder why the majority might reject what was picked by a super small minority.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)They're the majority of all groups when you actually look at how the "independents" vote. And registered Democrats are certainly the majority of people who vote for Democratic candidates. The very best case scenario is if half of the 12% of true independents vote Democratic. Which means 6% plus the dem leaning indies are 16% equals 22%.
29% dems
16% dem leaning independents
26% GOP
14% GOP leaning indie
12% "real" independents
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)The vast majority of them lean one way or the other and vote accordingly. If they were such a monolithic voting force, third parties would do better. Instead, they're an afterthought.
By the way, Democrats are now the largest voting bloc in the country.
Source, based on multiple polls, and not just one hand-picked Gallup poll everyone thinks is the be-all, end-all of polls:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification
jwirr
(39,215 posts)voters registered to be able to vote for HIM. That is not going to stay that way. There is way to much cheating going on for most to stay.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)stop bringing it up over and over.
Winning in a closed primary, doesn't mean you will win in a general election.
If you want to win in a general, maybe closed primaries aren't the way to go about that.
No one is saying closed primaries shouldn't exist. I am just wondering if closed primaries are the best way to pick a candidate in an open election.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)We that are actual members of the fucking party have the greater say in who will be the nominee, we who work in the off-years to elect a slate of Democrats to office and not johnny-fucking-one-notes who come every four. For fuck's sake, if everyone could vote willy-nilly in a primary, flip-flopping and ratfucking at will, why do parties exist at all? Use your head. Jesus.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)to help choose the Democratic nominee for president is stupid.
But, that's just me.
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)want a fellow Democrat at the head of the ticket. Winning in the GE is not enough if that candidate doesn't represent the Democratic Party and it's values. Now, you may not like those values (insert oligarchy and corporate whore if needed) and that's fine, but the majority of registered Democrats are happy with our nominee.
Look at what's happening to the Republican Party. We don't want that same type of take over from the Democratic Socialist Party, or the Greens. Not that there's anything wrong with those political factions, it's just not the Democratic Party, (insert oligarchy and corporate whore if needed.)
I know when people say "start your own party," it seems impossible. So, if you honestly think the Democratic Party is the best vehicle by which to launch a more Socialist agenda from, then actually join the party and change it.
still_one
(92,116 posts)some to understand?
A case that was brought up by the Supreme Court regarding this was the Democratic Party v. Jones
California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.
"In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."
It is interesting to note that the Jones referred to in this case was the republican Secretary of State, Bill Jones, and his motives were to give non-Democrats the opportunity to have a say in the Democratic primary.
Enough said. You want a voice in the Democratic primaries, register as a Democratic
Skid Rogue
(711 posts)"You want a voice in the Democratic primaries, register as a Democratic"
Thank you!
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)The rules....
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is to determine the wishes of Democrats, not the wishes of the general electorate.
I'm not sure why that concept so totally confuses you.
still_one
(92,116 posts)company thought they should be able to vote in union elections?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)funding these primaries and should have the right to vote for the candidate that inspires them.
randome
(34,845 posts)The hell with Independents who don't want to do shit to help. What's next? Independents should be able to vote for the Democratic candidate AND the Republican candidate AND the Green Party candidate AND...?
Entitled pricks is how I'm starting to see them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
B Calm
(28,762 posts)wish to continue to not allow them to participate in the selection process. Somehow your smug authorortian attitude that deprives voters their basic right to vote escapes you!
randome
(34,845 posts)You also pay taxes for your local fire and police departments. If you have no children, you pay taxes to support your local schools. Want to be an Independent so you can convince yourself you are 'above' the messiness of party politics? Fine. Have it your way.
But don't come whining about how your precious 'rights' are being curtailed because you have the same rights as everyone else: join or start a party if you want real change. But you won't because you don't. It's easier to hang out on the balcony and criticize the players instead of accepting the offer to be part of the play yourself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
B Calm
(28,762 posts)were open your shitty conservative DNC candidate would have lost after NY voted. Over 50% of registered voters no longer feel their party represents them anymore and to shut these independents from selecting a candidate that inspires them out of the selection process just affirms this.
randome
(34,845 posts)So quit whining and do something to help.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
B Calm
(28,762 posts) 
dubyadiprecession
(5,705 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)difference, they can still tick off their "addressing INJUSTICE!" box for the day: if someone opposes them, that's just icing on the cake
B Calm
(28,762 posts)the right to vote for a candidate that inspires the voter should never be limited to if you are registered to a political party. You want the party to grow, not turn them away!
The truth is, if every primary were open Hillary would have lost this thing after NY voted.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...that party can pay for every last cent required to conduct it.
riversedge
(70,182 posts)what ever else it takes.
MichMan
(11,901 posts)Incumbents are the big issue on open primaries. When both parties have contested races, there is little chance of crossover mischief occurring.
When one side has incumbents running unopposed in an open primary state, there is a huge potential for problems.
dubyadiprecession
(5,705 posts)to find out which candidate has the most appeal to just democratic voters. These democratic voters are are the ones most likely to turn out for that candidate in november. Republicans and Independents can help us pick our candidate for us in an open primary, but do we really want to gamble on the potential for political sabotage?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Democrats should choose who their nominee will be. Republicans should choose who their nominee will be. (Greens should choose who their nominee will be, etc.)
Anyone who wants to participate in either of these processes is free to do so. They literally just need to check a box and register with the party whose primary they want to take part in. When you check the box marked independent, you are making the free choice not to participate in any primary.
I do not want Republicans or conservatives or libertarians deciding who the Democratic nominee ought to be.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)
