Why does the Democratic Party support "closed primaries"?

[kentuck]

Should we be the Party that is trying to get more people to join, rather than less? Why would they support such a rule?

And why do they call themselves "democratic" when they support "super delegates", which is nothing less than putting a hand on the scales to favor one opponent over the other?

How does it benefit the Democratic Party to block millions of independent voters from voting for them?

Is it any wonder that every election is so close and that the Republicans have taken over in so many state houses and governorships?

Isn't it about time we shut down this "good ol' boy network" and open up the process?

[stonecutter357]

1. Democratic party Members only.......thanks.

[kentuck]

5. And the membership keeps getting smaller and smaller...

Operating under the pretense that they can raise more money than the Republicans and that is all that matters. Courting the big corporations and selling their souls to Wall Street. Yeah, that is a bright future.

[msongs]

2. anybody with at least some intelligence can figure out how to join the party for voting purposes.

even a life long independent figured out how to do after 73 years of resisting. well and for the $$

[LaydeeBug]

85. ^^this^^ nt

[beachbumbob]

3. We want democrats choosing our candidates....simple

[PJMcK]

7. Exactly^^^ (n/t)

[Hortensis]

16. I like Oregon's system because it is designed

to enfranchise everyone as easily as possible, yet it still retains some protections against a charismatic leader of a different political or religious orientation directing his followers in a hostile takeover of the nominating process. Political parties are very weak in this era. Making all primaries open in this environment would be to invite destruction by political foes, and of course it would absolutely set parties up to fail in their duty to their members.

Oregon automatically registers everyone, but voters then have to mail in a card to register for a specific party. Primaries are closed and only party members can vote in them, BUT joining a party or switching registration can be done up to very close to voting day.

[PJMcK]

20. Sounds like a good system

Thanks for that information, Hortensis. The main point is the voter is a member of a party to vote in its primary.

[Hortensis]

31. I think it achieves a very principled and functional

balance between freedom for individual voters yet protection for the voting groups they align with for strength. There is likely a detail or two I don't know. Apparently almost everyone votes by mail there now.

[LiberalFighter]

51. I would support Oregon's automatic registration and mail voting along with closed primary.

[riversedge]

53. Spot on.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Because we get to choose our candidate?

I joined the party in NY just so I could participate in primaries at all levels. It wasn't hard, really. Eight years of George W. Bush wasn't enough for left-leaning people to sign up?

[kentuck]

10. Words are cheap.

What are the actions? But, what about the Supreme Court? As we sit here hopelessly waiting for the Republican to win so they can pick a right-winger for the Court?

The little boy that cried "Wolf!" is ignored, even when the wolf is real this time around.

[BeyondGeography]

14. We've won the PV in five of the last six presidential elections

Maybe you can enlighten us as to what the big problem is, other than whiny Sanders supporters not having it exactly their way.

[kentuck]

18. All laws originate in the House.

That is where progress is made. Or, in the case of Republicans, that is where obstruction is made.

[BeyondGeography]

25. There is nothing in our processes that gives the Republicans an edge in the midterms

other than their historically higher propensity to vote.

[Blanks]

28. That and the gerrymandering...

Even though the democrats not voting in the midterms is probably the bigger factor, gerrymandering is gonna make it tough to win the house in 2016.

[LiberalFighter]

52. Congress has little say in regards to elections held in states.

State legislators determine how elections are run.

[kentuck]

60. Although a popular Congressman or Senator may help those on the ballot below them.

...and can change the way states are run. If the horses don't pass the oats, the birds don't eat.

[LiberalFighter]

71. Congress has limited power to change how states conduct their elections.

And members of Congress in a state don't have enough pull to make it happen.

[puffy socks]

29. "Eight years of George W. Bush wasn't enough for left-leaning people to sign up? "

Well, in all fairness, they just started paying attention, which is why they believe Bernie stated a revolution on issues we've been trying to get legislation passed on since the beginning of the 20th century. There a little late to the game and now that they've finally caught up, they're going to tell us all how to proceed.

[BeyondGeography]

33. And promising them the moon while he's at it

I'm glad the primary voting door is closed to many of these people who don't pay attention. It gives us a better result, and not just for November.

[kentuck]

36. Is free education and free healthcare the same as the "moon"?

Those "people policies" just don't get along with Democrats anymore, it seems?

[puffy socks]

37. Yes thank God

for the uninformed know-it-alls !

They sunk themselves .

[bigwillq]

6. I am for open primaries.

I want to vote in every race that affects me. An R might win the White House, so I should have a say as to who that R might be.

[puffy socks]

40. People don't like open primaries because it allows the opposition to come in and

change who the actual party members would have nominated.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Because Democrats should decide who will be the Democratic nominee?

[floriduck]

9. It's this protective paranoia that has them scared spit-less.

The "in crowd" likes keeping things nice and sequestered so no new thoughts get introduced. That might result in a stronger party with more participants. And they can't have that going on. God forbid someone who doesn't hold corporate welfare as their first commandment. The next thing you know, middle class citizens might become more influential and the whole shootin match might come tumbling down around them.

[Hortensis]

35. I believe SBSers would be demanding closed primaries if

Sanders had called for closed primaries, and that Sanders would have called for closed primaries if he thought they would gain him a single extra delegate.

This is ALSO complete hypocrisy:

“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

How dare he lie about us to gratify the conceit of his followers that way? All those people can register as Democrats tomorrow, or last year or next year. They can gather signatures and/or pay fees as required and run for office on the Democratic ticket. There is nothing stopping them. The door was wide open for Bernie himself, an official Independent, to join the party and run for POTUS (!) on our ticket.

His characterization of us, though, is truly unforgivable. The Democratic Party has many leaders and members who have been and are working for real economic and social change and done their best to hold the line against the swell of corporate and social fascism. Mostly while he sat to the side collecting his senatorial salary. How dare this man I see as a dishonest, hypocritical gadfly insult and lie about the ideological descendants of Jefferson and Madison so profoundly? I once considered supporting him, but I will never forgive him that shabby insult.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Just because the door is shut doesn't mean it is locked. :)

So maybe the Independents just didn't try opening the door. If they made the effort they would find they could get in.

They sure like to make excuses. Don't they?

[Hortensis]

61. Nearly 500 of 1000 Sanders delegates did not show up

to the Nevada convention as they had agreed to, and obviously the campaign failed to organize the babysitters needed to get them out of bed and transport them to the hotel. And these people are supposed to replace us?

First step, present to door. Second step, walk in.

Excuses? Who knows? Maybe the revolution's still in bed. I'm still so angry at Sanders' insults that I've completely lost my sense of humor.

[floriduck]

70. You are wrong Hortensis.

I would never want to limit the size of the party. The vast majority of the 40%+ independents were at one time either Dems or Repubs who became dissatisfied with their party. These people add value in ideas and dialogue. But the Dems like their little club as is and as a lifelong Dem, it disturbs me that the party of FDR and Kennedy now wants to block them. As a result, the party will shrink and it opens the door for new parties to be formed.

[Hortensis]

79. In my opinion his followers would support limiting the size

of the party to anything Sanders said, or renaming it the Dittohead Party if that's what he wanted.

But Sanders is the only one talking about limiting the size of the party, which may be about the stupidest thing he's asked his followers to swallow yet. And here you are.

The larger the membership, the more votes and more power a party has.

Get it? This isn't Politics 101, it's third grade social studies. And anyone can be a Democrat if he or she wants.

[floriduck]

83. Your opinion is noted. I completely disagree but you have that right.

As for your condescension, I just consider the source.

[Hortensis]

84. It is despicable in anyone to choose to believe lies about me

and the Democratic Party and to support a liar who spreads vicious lies about me and the Democratic Party, and even more to spread them. Those are just things nobody can stop you from doing, or being. Let's get that clear.

[floriduck]

86. I tried to let you have your say. But if this is how you want to play, then

I think the methods you and your ilk are using are despicable. You aren't lying as far as I can tell. You're just ignorant and buy into whatever crap you think fits your agenda. Sanders is doing whatever he can to help those who need it most. He didn't go out and gather money from Wall Street or launder money (legally but certainly not morally) through the state Dem parties to tie up their super delegates.

Bernie didn't change his message because it suited his focus groups. He has been on this mission for 30 plus years. That's why the Dem party is fighting him tooth and nail. They don't want to change their monopoly on lobbyist money, or risk their jobs.

If you think this will end in Philadelphia, you, sir, are fucking batshit crazy. This is just the start so get goddam used to it. Your sanctimonious candidate will be lucky to survive one term before she's either in prison or loses to a real leader in 2020.

Now get the fuck out of here!

[MFM008]

11. because

were supposed to be democrats. Not republicans or independents. An Independent might actually BE a republican.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Parties are all about control.

It's quite clear that many Establishment Dems can't stand anyone they can't tell who to vote for which is why they have given up on getting the Millennial vote or the Independent vote.

[CrowCityDem]

13. With Trump already clinched, we don't want Republicans voting for our nominee to screw us.

[One of the 99]

15. To answer your first question

Should we be the Party that is trying to get more people to join, rather than less?

Having a closed primary in which only party members can vote IS how to get more people to join so they can participate. Letting independents vote only encourages them to stay independent.

Is it any wonder that every election is so close and that the Republicans have taken over in so many state houses and governorships?

This makes no sense since the option of open or closed primaries is determined by state and not by party. It infers that somehow the Republicans are having open primaries and the Dems are not. Just not factually true. If a state has a open GOP primary, the Dem primary is open too. If it has a closed Dem primary, the GOP primary is closed too.

[Fresh_Start]

32. No you are wrong.

A state does not detemine whether all its primaries are open or closed.
Its the party within the state.

California Republican primary is closed:

California democratic primary is what you would probably consider an open primary...but its actually called a modified closed primary: people who have not selected any party can vote in the democratic primary as well as democrats. But republicans are not allowed to vote in the democratic primary.

[LiberalFighter]

56. Parties have that option only if state legislators provide it.

[One of the 99]

89. States set their own election laws

that rule primaries. Do the parties control that process, yes. But the point is that it is done state by state, not by the national parties.

[Fresh_Start]

91. agree, the ultimate decision is within the state political parties nt

nt

[One of the 99]

92. No the ultimate decision is made by a state's legislature

that votes on and passes elections laws.

[Fresh_Start]

93. no, look at california for example

the democratic party and the republican party have different primary rules

if the decision was made by the state, they would have the same rules

republican primary is closed so that only republicans can vote
democratic primary allows both democrats and decline to states to vote

[One of the 99]

94. Actually they don't

You're misstating California's laws. Either way California's election laws were set by it's legislature and it is only one state, there are 49 others.

Plus the OP was inferring that the GOP is having open primaries and the Dems are not which led to the GOP taking over so many state houses. So you're actually disproving his point and proving mine.

[Fresh_Start]

95. I was not opining one way or the other on the supposition that GOP primary

rules led to the takeover of state legislatures.

I believe that the GOP is more likely to have closed primaries than the democratic party is likely to have closed primaries.
I don't believe that was a factor in the takeover of state legislatures.

I was merely stating that the states are not imposing primary rules.
The state creates a 'framework' but the final decision may well be in the hands of the political parties.

[One of the 99]

96. So you agree that the OP's point was wrong.

[Fresh_Start]

97. I agree that part of the OP statement is factually wrong

"This makes no sense since the option of open or closed primaries is determined by state and not by party. It infers that somehow the Republicans are having open primaries and the Dems are not. Just not factually true. If a state has a open GOP primary, the Dem primary is open too. If it has a closed Dem primary, the GOP primary is closed too."

I really wasn't going any further than that part of his supposition was incorrect.

[OKNancy]

17. The Democratic Party is like our Union

It's our political Union, and non-union members should not be able to vote in it. They haven't paid the dues, done the work, or cared enough to join, so they have no say.

Also, if Independents want to vote in a primary then they need to field a candidate.

Last reason is open primaries are open to hi-jinx and rat-fucking.

---
Oh, one more thing, each state party decides how it should be done and the national party has no say in it.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. And people wonder why over half the country doesn't vote.

[kentuck]

21. What happens when there are more independents than there are Democrats or Republicans?

What message should we take from that?

[OKNancy]

24. They should field their own candidate and let the chips fall where they may

If Independents are so strong, then form a party.

[kentuck]

38. It's coming.

Get ready.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. damn right it is.

[LiberalFighter]

59. I don't see it happening.

They are not organized. And they don't have a bottom to top structure nor do they have the support needed in every state.

[LiberalFighter]

57. Just like nobody can be a Chamber member without paying dues

neither can they vote.

Actually, the only way a political party can determine the type of election is if the state legislator provides that option.

[jamese777]

22. Different types of Primaries...

help a political party gauge the electoral strength of candidates among different segments of the voting public. Open primaries are good for seeing a candidate's ability to draw independents but a weakness of open primaries is that they are ripe for mischief. People who have no intention of supporting a party's nominee can vote in an open primary just to try to influence the outcome.
For example, now that the Republican race is over, Republicans will vote in open Democratic primaries to try to make sure Trump runs against the weakest Democrat (from their perspective).
Closed primaries gauge support among a party's rank and file members, the base; and caucuses tend to measure support among the most activist members of a party. There are also states that have a hybrid mix of several types.
Parties don't put all their primary eggs in one basket.
Superdelegates have been around since 1984. Their purpose is to help insure that the party selects a strong candidate. The overwhelming majority of superdelegates are elected officials from their states. Superdelegates only constitute about 20% of all delegates.

[anotherproletariat]

23. Because the party nominee should be chosen by party members. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Closed primaries will get more people to join, not fewer!

Your first point is completely backwards. Besides the obvious argument about the Democratic nominee being chosen by Democrats, another advantage of closed primaries is that they encourage people to join the party in order to vote.

The process is already completely open. Anyone who wants to can join the Democratic party and vote in its primaries; there's no "good ol' boy network" involved. But if you *don't* identify as a Democrat, and don't want to join, there's no reason you should vote in the primaries.

I don't think there are overwhelming arguments you shouldn't, either - closed primaries aren't a sacrament. But, on balance, they look like the better option. And certainly, the widespread claims (like yours) that they're heretical are motivated solely by the fact that Sanders did better in them, rather than by any rational argument.

[jberryhill]

27. So that the Democratic nominee is selected by Democrats

This is not at all difficult to understand.

[KingFlorez]

30. To prevent potential problems like Trump

It's doubtful that Trump would have performed well enough to be a contender in a Democratic primary, but there still would have been a chance with open primaries.

[kentuck]

34. It would be a nice insurance policy...

to have a Senate that could over-ride a Trump veto, wouldn't it?

[NorthCarolina]

41. Because the establishment has much greater control over the outcome. -nt-

[derpderpderp]

42. To keep grassroots candidates from winning. Oligarchy baby!

[Buzz cook]

43. The democratic party does not support closed primaries.

The various state parties get to choose. They choose the caucus, open primaries, closed primaries and semi open primaries.

Do you want to national party to mandate open primaries? How much local power are you willing to cede to the national party?

And if you do want all states to have open primaries, what's in it for me?

[rock]

44. "Should we be ... trying to get more people to join?"

Sure! Join the Democratic Party, vote for any Democrat you care to. What's the problem?

[imagine2015]

45. To stop liberals from being nominated.

[Tarc]

46. Political parties are created to support common goals and ideas

It prevents the party from being swamped with flavor-of-the-week candidates.

[bbrady42]

47. Operation Chaos

[NV Whino]

48. California has a semi open primary

Democratic party allows Independents, Libertarians and No Party Affiliation to vote in the primary. Keeps the Repugs out, welcomes people who generally support democrats anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

49. It is not a good ol' boy network!

The good ol' boy network was leaders who were not necessarily party leaders deciding in back rooms who the nominee would be. There were no caucuses or primaries.

If people are going to join the Democratic Party that means joining the Democratic Party. If necessary by declaring their party preference. If a voter is not willing to do that than they don't have any skin it or dedication to improving the party.

There is nothing undemocratic about the automatic (unpledged) delegates. They are delegates because of their position. They came by the delegate status through an election with the Democratic Party or as an elected member of Congress or the White House. If you don't want the congressional members of Congress or the President, Vice President, Past Presidents, and current majority leaders of Congress to be part of the process than you are keeping them out of the democratic process of the Democratic Party.

As for the DNC members they were all elected. Just not by you. It is no different in any other organization that have a process that involves leaders. In this case a nominee for a national office. The process involves Democrats running to be a precinct committee person within their precinct. Those PCP's then elect the local county Democratic Party officers. The Chairs and Vice Chairs of the county Democratic Party officers then elect officers to the congressional district Democratic Party. Those congressional district Democratic Party officers become part of the state central committee which elects the State Chair and other officers of the State Democratic Party including DNC members that represent the state at the National Party. All of this democratic.

Those "Superdelegates" are not putting a hand on the scales that predetermines anything. It is just an excuse to explain why a candidate is losing. When the truth is they were losing without even considering the automatic delegates. In this case, Clinton leads Sanders 1771 to 1449 by a margin of 272 delegates. Automatic delegates serve several functions. It allows more local activists to be delegates which would otherwise be filled by more connected Democrats such as Senators or U.S. Representatives. In many districts which are aligned with congressional districts there are from 4 to 6 slots available. By opening up those slots for activists and still including top elected Democrats they will feel that they are also included in the process. Several elections prior to this has resulted in elected officials not coalescing around the nominee because they didn't feel they were part of it. They are also needed to avoid a George Wallace, Donald Trump, or John Edwards from receiving the nomination. That is a judgement call on their part but it is based on how the candidates present their case to the delegates and the delegates on their own and as a whole have a wealth of political experience to understand the weaknesses and strengths of campaigns.

Independents don't have any right to determine the Presidential nominee of the Democratic or Republican Party. They are not members of the Democratic or Republican Party. They need to determine which political party they most closely are aligned whether one of the major ones or others that are out there. If they are not willing to do that than they need to stick to voting in just the General Election.

Which elections are close? That is not happening. As for Republicans taking over many state offices that is the result of gerrymandering and voters just not caring about the outcome. No amount of open primaries will change that. If anything, it will make it easier for Republicans to hijack Democratic primaries and determine the outcome of our candidates.

[kentuck]

62. When "super delegates make up 15% of total delegates...

That is like someone getting a 15 yard start in a 100 yards race.

[jamese777]

66. Superdelegates

Can vote for ANY candidate. They don't all vote for the same candidate. They have NEVER all voted for the same candidate.

[kentuck]

67. Shouldn't they adhere to the same rules as the pledged delegates?

and vote for whom the people in their state favor in the primary?

[LiberalFighter]

68. Even without the automatic delegates she is ahead by 15 yards.

Her lead with just pledged delegates is 15.35% over Sanders.

If that was a 100 yard dash that would mean that Sanders got smoked.

[Lil Missy]

50. Simple - so non-Democrats cannot fuck with the system. Democrats should pick the Democrats.

[TwilightZone]

55. Because we don't want Trump supporters selecting our candidate for us

It's not really that complicated. You're making it a lot harder than it needs to be.

[Metric System]

58. Because you'd have people voting who don't give a shit about the party.

[kentuck]

63. As if it is not hard enough to get people to the polls in the first place...

But, if they can somehow figure out a way to screw the Democratic favorite, they will swarm the polls.

[Hekate]

64. How does it benefit the Party to allow ratfucking Republicans to mess with our elections?

Ever wonder about that?

[kentuck]

65. I suppose there is a precedence for this "ratfucking"??

It has happened numerous times?

[jamese777]

74. Yes, it happens every election cycle

"Exit polls: Nearly half of W.Va. Sanders backers would vote Trump"
Nearly half of the voters in the West Virginia Democratic primary who backed Bernie Sanders say they would vote for Republican Donald Trump in the fall presidential election, according to exit polls reported by CBS News.

Forty-four percent of Sanders supporters surveyed said they would rather back the presumptive GOP nominee in November, with only 23 percent saying they'd support Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. And 31 percent said would support neither candidate in the likely general election match-up.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279430-nearly-half-of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote

[jamese777]

76. From 2014: Angry Republican Leaders...

ready to shut door on open primaries
Changes sought after Mississippi Democrats help Thad Cochran beat Chris McDaniel

Any party that allows its opponents to help pick its candidates in “open” primaries is a PPINO — a “political party in name only” — say many Republican officials at their annual summer meeting.

Republican National Committee members and activists are still seething about reports that longtime Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican, enlisted Democrats to help him win his tough primary contest this summer against state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who was backed by the tea party.

They would seem to have an ally in the GOP boss, but the sentiments of the entire party and the prospects for changing state laws are unclear.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/6/angry-republican-leaders-ready-to-shut-door-on-ope/?page=all

[Jitter65]

69. If people want in to the party why don't they register as a Democrat? nt

[kentuck]

72. Maybe they want to be in a different Democratic Party?

Maybe they want to see this Democratic Party change?

How about another trade treaty? If it was good enough for Bill Clinton, then it's good enough for me!

[jamese777]

78. Simple Answer...

Register as a Democrat in order to help change the Party. If you know that you live in a closed primary state, register as a Democrat to vote in the primary. Registering in a party has zero effect on how you choose to vote in the general election.
You can't change a party that you are not a member of.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party...I'm a Democrat."-- Will Rogers

[Bill USA]

73. REpublicans support "Open primaries" .... for Democrats...LOL!

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size="5"] [/font]

[seabeyond]

77. So Democrats elect our candidate and not the Teabaggers.

[asuhornets]

80. Join the party if you want a say so....n/t

[kentuck]

81. Don't you think the Bernie supporters are trying to join the Party?

Are they seen as a threat?

[asuhornets]

82. Not a threat at all. Bernie Sanders came along, and many left-leaning independents

wanted him a President..Ok cool. But it didn't workout that way. The Democrats chose Hillary Clinton. He started too late-he became a Democrat too late, just like his supporters. Clinton out organized him, just like Obama out organized her in 2008..Bernie Sanders is losing because of him--period

[hobbit709]

87. Because the big tent has become a smoke filled room full of corporations.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

88. Nobody is stopping anybody from joining the Democratic Party

However, if independents don't want to join a party, they should accept that they will be excluded from the primaries by both current major parties.

[One of the 99]

90. Why should outsiders decided Democratic party primaries?

Too much room for shenanigans there.