2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs it really a good idea to get rid of closed primaries?
During the primary season, predictably, both sides will tend to favor the format that helps their candidate. This is just human nature. But now that it's over, we can maybe have a rational discussion about which type is better.
This time around, the open primaries were better for Bernie, because he did better with independents. But it's very far from guaranteed that open will always favor the more liberal candidate. Say hypothetically a Mike Bloomberg decides to run as a Dem against an Elizabeth Warren. I'm pretty sure in that case that Bloomberg would be the beneficiary of open primaries. Is that what we want?
As far as principles, I can see the argument either way. On one hand, it makes sense that Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee. And it's not like it's hard to register as a Democrat. On the other, open primaries bring more people into the process, and could potentially broaden the party.
But careful what you wish for with that party broadening. One of the most hated entities here is "Third Way", but like it or not, "Third Way" was a broadening of the party. Just not in the direction that liberals wanted it. But most non-Democrats are less liberal, not more liberal than Democrats. Yes, there are Green party people and other disaffected liberal independents that are to the left of the average Dem, and this time those people turned out for Bernie. But there are also libertarians, and "pro-business social liberals" and all sorts of other independents to the right of the average Dem that might turn out in future open primaries.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)sufficiently invested in the Democratic Party.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Lochloosa
(16,019 posts)I want Democrats to elect who is going to run for my party.
This does lock me out of some local elections. Quite a few times only the repugs put up candidates for local seats, but that is a whole other issue. That blame lies at the feet of the Florida Democratic Party.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Closed primaries are undemocratic.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Parties are private entities. The Green party has closed primaries, do you think the Green party is undemocratic? I can understand very well why the Green Party wants Green Party members to choose the Green Party candidate.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The point of choosing a candidate from your party is that the party gets to choose the candidate. You want Racist Joe Republican choosing the weakest Democrat on the slate for us so that we lose the GE?
I have never been in favor of open primaries and I never will be.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)It's a silly argument.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)let there be GOP primaries, and make it so they cannot vote in both the GOP and Dem primaries....they must choose. I think they'll chose their own parties primary. The "threat" of a mass influx of republicans shunning their own primary in order to mess with the Democratic primary is a feeble argument at best, and likely spawned by the very interests that closed primaries serve. When the GREATEST number of voters are registered as independents, it makes sense to allow those folks a chance to express an opinion in the primary of their choice.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)They choose which primary they want to vote in at the polls.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)As you say, opening the primaries entirely may eventually push the party to the right. Open primaries in the past were designed to dilute the influence of the party faithful.
bonemachine
(757 posts)You mean, like the last 25 years? Because that's already the direction it's been headed for at least that long...
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Be careful what you wish for in these open primaries.
bonemachine
(757 posts)you think it was a bad thing...
DrDan
(20,411 posts)it is really not that difficult to join a party
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)My state lets undeclared voters chose a primary ballot from either party. I'm OK with that.
MrsKirkley
(180 posts)In some closed states, one has to register as a Democrat a long time before the Primaries. Many people may not pay close attention to politics until it's time for the Primaries. When Independents wait in line at Primaries ready to switch parties to vote only to be told they had to make the switch months ago, they may be so angry and discouraged they decide not to vote in November. Independents are needed to win an election, so the last thing Democrats should be doing is turning them away.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)get the nomination over Warren. Yeah, it's hypothetical, but it's not far-fetched at all that something like that could happen in the future.
There's definitely an argument about bringing more people into the mix, like you said. But there's also an argument about making sure that the Democratic nominee represents Democratic principles.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee
WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)I also think that they should all be primaries and no caucuses.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You make a large drama out of a small matter. What does a 'closed primary' mean, really? It means that prior to the election day you declare membership in a Party. That's it. Nothing vets that declaration for authenticity, no one tests the new member on Party positions. It's just a person's own choice.
So it really does not filter out persons who have intent to 'cross vote' to fuck with a Party, it just means they have to plan a bit, persons into such complex tactics can be assumed capable of planning such tactics.
If people had to be vouched for to join, or pay money or prove they'd done volunteer work that would in fact vet the new members. None of that is desired or even legal.
So 'closed' means 'have to join by the 20th' and 'open' means 'don't have to join until election day'.
Making much ado about that which is not so much to make a do about.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)suggesting that closed were undemocratic. Part his argument he was making as to why he should be the nominee despite losing is that he did better when independents were allowed to vote. And now one of his demands is getting rid of or reducing closed primaries.
I agree that on paper it's not a big deal, but in practice it does change things. Otherwise Bernie wouldn't be making an issue of it. The question is does it change them for the better or worse.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Are you speaking to Bernie? No. You are speaking to me.
So I said what I said. And you said 'But, but Bernie.....'
So I'll try this. How closed do you want them? Should voters have to register a day before the election? How about a year before? Perhaps we should have them skip the fist election after they join, to really make sure they mean business? What aspect of your position helps us vet newly joined people to make sure they are the 'real Democrats' you seek? Is there a swab test for DNA evidence? No. So where is the benefit in closing the primary?
Do you close it a year in advance? Six months? A day?
YouDig
(2,280 posts)The point is to give my opinion on something that Bernie is proposing. If Bernie wasn't proposing it, and if he hadn't been complaining about closed primaries for months, then I wouldn't make the OP.
I'm fine with the open/closed system the way it is. State parties decide. I live in New York, it was closed, and the registration deadline was long before the primary, sometime last year I think. That's fine with me.
The things I don't like are caucuses and superdelegates. I don't see any defense of those. But I don't get why Bernie is making a big deal of closed primaries.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)that it really wouldn't matter except you wanted to oppose Bernie? Wow, now there's some amazing logic. Thank you for your honesty.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)comment?
George II
(67,782 posts)....that Sanders attracted millions of new votes are bunk.
In 2008 the population of the United States was 304 million. In 2016 it is 324, 20 (~7%) million more.
Yet the voter turnout in the Democratic primaries in 2016, a highly contested primary season until the last few weeks, was DOWN over 2008.
In 2008 over 35 million people voted in the Democratic primaries, in 2016 only 29 million people voted. That's a 17% drop even with a 7% increase in population.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Have the right to vote (people over 18, people who don't have felonies in most states, actual citizens and not just legal residents) can vote. That takes a big chunk out of your 304 million. You can only compare it to eligible people who can vote.
George II
(67,782 posts)Now if turnout was level or up a small amount betweeen 2008 and 2016, I can see that possibly being a factor. But we're seeing a relatively huge drop in turnout with a probably increase in eligible voters.
Look at it this way, and I don't know how to confirm the actual numbers, I'd guess that those who turned 18 over the course of those eight years and had "clean" records probably exceeds 20 million, meaning those eligible to vote increased yet those who turned out decreased.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Even if an Independent runs for President and gets a third of the popular vote overall it is still very difficult for them to win any electoral votes, certainly not in proportion to their popular vote total. And history has shown that it is very difficult to have a credible Third Party/Independent run for President - they are rare while every election cycle a Republican and a Democrat are both credible candidates for President. And even if an Independent wins the plurality of the popular vote for President AND a plurality in the Electoral College in a 3 way race, then the election gets decided in the House of Representatives, which is completely controlled by the two major parties.
By the time true Independent voters have a real say in who becomes their next President, partisan voters have narrowed the realistic field to two choices. Theoretically that may not be so, but in actual practice it is. You have to go back a century to Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party to find an instance of the two party system being seriously challenged, and even then it was by a previous major party candidate ex president.
When Independent voters were a smaller subset of the general electorate, their relative disenfranchisement in choosing who becomes eligible to have a real shot at becoming president was easier to overlook, but now they outnumber the adherents of either the Democratic or Republican parties. It is inherently undemocratic for them to be excluded from helping to advance a candidate to the finals, so to speak.
Our primaries should be open to actual independents who will become part of the winning coalition to elect any President. I do support safeguards to make it harder for actual partisans to pretend to be Independents in order to create cross over havoc. Therefor I oppose allowing someone already registered with a political party being able to switch their registration over to Independent shortly before a primary in order to participate in it.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Not like there's a screening process.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with the party in whose primary they want to vote.
Just check a box on a form.
George II
(67,782 posts)It's not a closed club. I IS a so-called "closed club" if people decide to become Democrats at the last minute. It's not like the rules are hidden and people only find out about them when they show up to vote.
Look at it this way. If you belong to a certain club for years (let's say an athletic club), when it comes time to establishing the rules do you really want people who are members of a chess club or bridge club deciding what your rules are and determining your officers?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)have a say in deciding who realistically has a chance of becoming President, even if all are free to join them"
This is from 2013, by now Independents may be a majority:
"Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
In your analogy the nomination process and convention rues remain under the control of the the athletic club regardless.
George II
(67,782 posts)....hopefully be competitive.
Since there are that many independents, they are free to form a club and go through the process that we just completed in the Democratic Party.
But, if you were to talk to that 42%, I think you'd find that if they organized into loose "factions", the outcome might be four or five groups, each lower than either of the levels of membership of the current two major parties.
That happens on the state level. I know that when I lived in New York State there were actually four viable parties - the Democratic Party, the republican party, and also the Conservative and Liberal Parties. In fact, back in the 1960s and 1970s both of the "minor" parties were very instrumental in New York State politics.
In 1969 New York City Mayor John Lindsay lost the republican primary, so he entered the general election as a member of the Liberal Party, and was re-elected.
When Mario Cuomo ran for Mayer in the 1970s, he lost the primary to Ed Koch, so ran as a member of the Liberal Party and barely got beaten.
In 1970, James Buckley didn't get the republican nomination, so he ran under the Conservative Party, and was elected Senator.
So it can happen, and not in just small states. At the time I believe New York had the largest electorate, or was close to #1, and as you can see at least three candidates from two so-called "minor" parties had good showings in the general election - two were elected and one barely lost.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but I'm not terrible interested in litigating every excuse one campaign had for losing.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Well, we both agree Clinton will beat Trumpf too.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)apnu
(8,722 posts)Not a flood of outsiders and bad actors mucking up the system. People treated the Democratic Primary as though is was the general election. Its depressing how clueless that is.
If one hates the direction a party takes then they can either work within the party to change course or they can opt out and be indy or join another party. Its really not that hard.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)I remember in 2008 Rush Limpballs started what he called Operation Chaos which was Republican infiltration of the primaries to help drag out the fight between Clinton and Obama.
So ever since then I have supported closed primaries and I continue to do so. People have FOUR years to get registered to vote and if they don't too bad.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)It's just every 4 years that we have Presidential Primaries.
jzodda
(2,124 posts)Two years is also more than enough time imo but much fewer people vote in the midterms. Not one of my non political friends have ever voted in a midterm election. For some I have to work just to get them interested in the Presidential.
This time around though every single one is interested and voting this fall. I think turnout will be super high.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The party needs to have every primary closed IMO.
Unless they want republicans choosing their candidates of course.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)This time around, the open primaries were better for Bernie, because he did better with independents.
Independents, by your own admission, voted for a self described democratic-socialist, but establishment Democrats voted for the more right leaning candidate. We can no longer call ourselves a left of center party with a straight face.
CanonRay
(14,038 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)People who want open primaries are much happier seeing RW extremist fuckwads bork the Democratic primaries than having moderates actually join the party & work toward the common good.
Yonnie3
(17,376 posts)It was many years ago. My uncle in KY and all his buddies from church, who were all religious right (but not nuts) would register as Democrats in order to put forth the worst Democratic candidate in local elections. I remember them bragging how they succeeded. I believe KY was a fully closed primary then.
My point is that closed primaries don't stop shenanigans.
-none
(1,884 posts)they want you to vote for. Never mind who you want to vote for in the primaries. Never mind the party is supposed to be neutral in the primaries.
The Democratic party leadership was far from impartial, starting in 2008. The intent was to steamroll this primary with their pick and they did that quite well... Pending the outcome of the numerous law suits involving election fraud.
This primary is a case in point as to why open primaries are better.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The only obstacle to participating in a closed primary is being a Democrat and I don't see why that's an unreasonable thing to ask of people who want to choose Democratic nominees. We certainly don't want Republicans getting to select Democratic nominees.
Chemisse
(30,793 posts)And that the states can each decide.
There are pros and cons of each type, and this way we get information that helps in predicting the general election.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)alleviates any concern of Republicans crossing over and voting.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Open or Closed... SDs or no SDs... whatever can be invoked to maintain establishment and their preferred candidate...
so care to re-frame your question?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The repeated refrain that Sanders did better in open Primaries is inaccurate.
I prefer a partially open primary where independents or decline to state can join the party on election and vote in the Democratic primary.
If we are serious about expanding our voter base, we need to abolish caucuses.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)You are right, Hillary won more open primaries than Bernie. But her edge in closed primaries was even greater.
I totally agree about caucuses. They need to go. I'm disappointed that Bernie didn't call for that as part of the reforms he wants to see. It makes it seem like he's not serious about making the system better, he's just bitter that he lost and wants to blame the rules.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Obviously there are some kinks in implementation but I think overall it's a fair compromise.
I don't want Republican strategic voters voting in our primary, but I also felt that it was unfair for people who genuinely consider themselves independent to be excluded, when they too will be governed by the president and often have a preferred candidate in one party or the other that they want to vote for. I think that being able to appeal to people like that is also a good barometer of who has appeal beyond the party base, which is necessary to win in the general.
You do make a good point, though, because often independents lean more toward conservative Democrats. It was kind of unusual this year that the more liberal candidate did better among independents. But that was the case in 2008 as well.
I think it makes sense to either do a compromise like California, where independents can vote in either party's primary but people who are registered with another party cannot, or allow people to change their party at the polls. That would not deter all strategic voting, but it would deter a lot of it. If I had still lived in Virginia in 2012, where there is no party registration, I might have voted in the Republican primary strategically since Obama had no opposition. But in a closed primary state, there was no way in hell I was going to create a public record of registering as a Republican.
At the very least, I think New York's ridiculous requirement to change parties 6 months in advance needs to be done away with. It was really unfair to a lot of people whose preferred candidates had dropped out by the time the primary came along.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)We engage a lot more people into the party that way.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)candidate.