The reason you want more people voting in your primaries is so you have a better....

[Sivart]

A better chance of winning in the general election.

This is a no brainer.

If you go with completely closed primaries, you will end up selecting fewer general election winners.

[geek tragedy]

1. state law determines whether primaries are open or closed, so it's a wash either way

[BobbyDrake]

2. Every modern President who won election would disagree with you.

Democrats and Republicans both use closed primaries, and their candidates still win.

Can you actually point to any legitimate correlation between diversity of primary voters and general election success? Or is this just some truthiness that you feel must be correct because you need it to be?

[djean111]

21. Your scenario assumes the people who did not vote in the primary (and some of the people who did)

obediently voting for whoever is wearing the team jersey. May not work out that way this year. I know millennials who won't even bother voting, if it is Hillary. That's not on Bernie, that's on the DNC.

[NorthCarolina]

3. I can just about GUARANTEE there will be a huge push

for closed primaries after this primary. The establishment will attempt to close anything they perceive as a loophole that would permit another non-establishment candidate from ever challenging their complete control over the candidate selection process again.

[CorkySt.Clair]

11. I sure hope so.

I'm not interested in the Dem nominee being picked by a bunch of loony Naderites and fringe left greens and other assorted randos.

[SirBrockington]

54. Exactly

[Sivart]

62. You guys sounds like republicans.....

reading off that list of people you hate.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Exactly: closed primaries favor the status quo.

Unfortunately, the status quo doesn't favor the people.

I've pretty much given up at this point. This year's primary season made it abundantly clear that meaningful change from within our completely-corrupted system is simply not going to happen. For me, it's local issues and advocacy of Cascadian secession going forward.

[Eko]

64. It's easier to stand outside and throw rocks

than actually register to a party and make meaningful changes.

[emulatorloo]

4. I'm just not interested in Republicans fucking with our primaries.

If one is a left leaning independent who wants a say on Dem nominee, then one registers as a democrat and votes in the Democratic primary.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Yes, then a voter can vote in the primary they chose.

[stillwaiting]

43. It needs to allow for same day registration AT THE VERY LEAST then.

If they won't permit open primaries, then allowing citizens to register as Democrats SAME DAY must be allowed.

The voting suppression that was rampant this primary must not be allowed to ever happen again within the Democratic Party.

[SirBrockington]

48. +1

[WhiteTara]

5. no one complained in 2008. I wonder why?

[Exilednight]

47. yes they did. there was also a huge fight over caucuses.

Obama won many of the caucus states and several open primaries. Ironically, the people pushing for closed primaries on this board are many of the same people who wanted more open primaries back then.

[WhiteTara]

61. I've always believed in closed

primaries.

[democrattotheend]

52. Yes they did. The Hillary folks complained a lot about open primaries

Because she didn't do well in them in 2008 either.

[Thinkingabout]

6. One of the choices we make in life is to register to vote, a choice of being a Democrat is a choice.

If the state is a closed primary and it should be the choice of those desiring to vote for a candidate in a primary needs to be to register as a member of that party. In most states, registering with a party is open, anyone registered as a Democrat can vote in the DNC primaries.

[CrowCityDem]

7. What in the world does primary turnout have to do with winning the general?

[YouDig]

9. That's possible. But you also can end up with candidates that don't reflect the values and policies

of the party.

[Jack Bone]

10. Don't ya just love it when the votes get suppressed? nt

[One of the 99]

12. Wouldn't having people actually join your party

to vote in primaries be better. That way they are more involved and invested in the outcome. Plus it prevents members of the other party crossing over to create havoc.

[DrDan]

13. these candidates represent the parties - hence they should be chosen by the parties

I do not understand why ANY party member would trust the votes from non-members to select their candidates. Simply makes absolutely no sense to me.

[nini]

14. huh?

You obviously miss the point of 'primaries' which are for each party to select who they want in the GE.

[Sivart]

18. If the argument included that Party membership should be restricted, then it may make sense...

But I don't see how you can say we don't want independents and republicans voting in our primaries.....but we are absolutely fine with independents and republicans changing their registration to vote in our primaries....

Because that is exactly how things are now.

[Sivart]

15. Here's the thing.....

The primaries are in many ways a test run. A chance to see how the options we have would do. The results of this test run are more accurate when more people vote. just like any other test or survey....the results are more representative of the real world the large the sample size.

Everyone makes a big deal about being a member of the party....but its really meaningless. Literally anyone can join. There are ZERO requirements. The most right wing republican person I know can change their registration to the Democratic Party anytime they want to with no questions asked. I'm sure everyone realizes this....

If you closed the primaries, you do realize that a republican could just change their registration to our party, and still do the same shenanigans you are worried about now.

If there were restrictions and requirements to be a registered Democrat, then it might make a little more sense, but as long as there is not, then you should want as many people testing out your candidates as possible during the primaries.

In addition, everyone here should know that many people chose to not have a party affiliation when they register to vote, This can be for many reasons, including employment.

The bottom line is that party registration is pretty meaningless in this situation. This is because you pretend like you want only democrats to vote in the primary, while at the same time making no restriction whatsoever on who can be a Democrat.

[Sivart]

16. I'm not missing any point at all.....you guys are kidding yourselves party membership.....

If you are ok with literally anyone who can vote to be allowed to register as a Democrat, then whats the difference?

[B Calm]

19. Primary elections are paid for by TAX PAYERS! That said alone, they should all be open.

You need to welcome voters who may be inspired by a democratic candidate. If you want their votes in November, you should welcome them in the selection process.

[Sivart]

24. This is exactly my point.....

If you are gaining support from people who are not registered democrats, why would you not want to know that by letting them cast a vote? And conversely, if you are failing to gain support from non registered democrats, but your opponent is, why would you not want to know that??

You have much much more to gain by letting them vote than you do to lose by not letting them vote.

[upaloopa]

30. Polls are used for that purpose. Voting in a primary does not show how a general election will turn

out.

[upaloopa]

31. Tax payers pay for many things that the payers disagree on.

[B Calm]

35. But elections are not one of them!

[Tarc]

22. That is not at all how primaries work, but thanks for the 11th-hour try

[Sivart]

23. What do you mean specifically?

I am just pointing out that to say that only registered democrats should be allowed to vote in the primaries, while having absolutely zero restrictions or requirements relative to who can register as a democrat, seems to be a little oxymoron-ish.

[upaloopa]

27. You have to go to some effort to change party registration just to vote in a primary then change

back again. That is why some states expect you to register months before an election.

[Sivart]

39. Some effort...?

You have to go to some effort to vote, so whats your point?

It is still true that literally anyone who is legal to register can register as a democrat. There is no way to be disqualified from registering as a democrat. Therefore, there are zero restriction on legal voters registering as democrats.....

But when it comes to primary voting, we act like we don't want republicans and independents voting in primaries.....which I do understand to a point.....but it makes no sense to then, all those independents and republicans to change their registration so that they can vote in democratic primaries, and this scenario is completely fine.

[brooklynite]

25. So allowing Republicans to vote in our Primaries would be the best of all outcomes?

[w4rma]

28.  New York Had the Second-Lowest Voter Turnout So Far This Election Season

And 3 million New Yorkers, 27 percent of the electorate, didn’t get to vote because they weren’t registered with the Democratic or Republican parties, and the deadline to change party affiliation was an absurd 193 days before the April 19 primary, as I reported on Monday.

As a result, only 19.7 percent of eligible New Yorkers cast a ballot, the second-lowest voter turnout among primary states after Louisiana, according to elections expert Michael McDonald. There were over 900 calls from frustrated voters to the Election Protection Coalition, more than in any other primary state.

http://www.thenation.com/article/new-york-had-the-second-lowest-voter-turnout-so-far-this-election-season/

This crap is unacceptable in any "blue" state or in any "democracy".

[brooklynite]

36. They should have registered with the Democratic Party in the first place...

If they felt the need to "assert their independence" by not joining the Democratic Party, I'd say they got what they asked for.

[w4rma]

37. The Clintons and their New Democrats have shrank the Democratic Party since 1992. (nt)

[upaloopa]

26. Wrong! Open primaries allow the other party to pick your worse candidate.

Voting in primaries and in the general have no correlation.

[oasis]

29. If they are not DEMOCRATS they don't get to choose the Dem nominee.

Period.

[Mike Nelson]

32. Open to Democrats...

...Democrats vote in their primaries, not Republicans. We should encourage people to be Democrats and vote against people like Trump and Bush.

[workinclasszero]

33. Hillary is already ahead of Trump by 12 points

We need democrats only, voting for democrats in the primary.

[jamese777]

40. Bloomber News Poll

That 12 point lead for Hillary over Trump in the latest Bloomberg News Poll includes independents and disaffected Republicans who can't bring themselves to support Trump..

[jamese777]

34. I Like A Mixture

The best way to nominate the strongest candidate for the general election is through having to compete in a mixture of formats in the primaries and caucuses. I like havng some open to see how candidates do with independents and members of other parties, some closed, to see how candidates do with the rank and file members of the party, some caucuses, to test candidates' strength with party activists and the most dedicated members and a few hybrid mixtures.
Barack Obama got 9% of the registered Republican vote and 52% of the Independent vote in 2008.

[jamese777]

38. State Law

Determines the primary election process in each state. Right now 31 states have Republican Governors, 18 states have Democratic Governors and there is 1 Independent Governor in Alaska who used to be a Republican.

[immoderate]

41. Chaotic system. You win some; you lose some.

--imm

[Sivart]

42. Is there ANY actual instance where....

Is there ANY actual instance where registered Republicans voted in an open Democratic primary and out numbered registered democrats in said primary?

This keeps getting mentioned, but I believe it has literally never happened.

[jamese777]

44. We'll never really know

because states with open primaries usually don't require a voter to state a party preference.
Rush Limbaugh thinks enough of the idea that he launched "Operation Chaos" to urge Republicans to try to influence Democratic Primary Outcomes.
Republicans don't need to outnumber Democrats in order to have a major impact in a close primary.

This is from the Washington Post in 2008:
The impact of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" emerged as an intriguing point of debate, particularly in Indiana, where registered voters could participate in either party's primary, and where Clinton won by a mere 14,000 votes. As he had before several recent primaries, Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for Clinton to "bloody up Obama politically" and prolong the Democratic fight.
Limbaugh crowed about the success of his ploy all day Tuesday, featuring on-air testimonials from voters in Indiana and North Carolina who recounted their illicit pleasure in casting a vote for Clinton. "Some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh," Limbaugh said Tuesday.
But Limbaugh called off the operation yesterday, saying he wants Obama to be the party's pick, because "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees."
He added: "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

The Obama campaign and many of its supporters condemned Limbaugh's intervention tactic yesterday, calling it a major factor in Clinton's narrow Hoosier State win.
"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary, and the GOP has clearly declared that it wants Hillary Clinton as the candidate," Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), an Obama supporter, told reporters on a conference call. On the same call, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Limbaugh "had a clear factor in the outcome."
Whether that is true remains in question. Even if Limbaugh's exhortations brought as many of his listeners to the polls as he says, his operation did not cripple Obama, who emerged stronger from the day's primaries after better-than-expected showings with some key groups of voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703932.html

[Sivart]

63. well, it seems pretty clear that...

The one example you can give me was a failure, thus confirming that this has never been an actual issue.

[Adrahil]

45. No-brainer is right.

The point of the primaries is to select the representative of the party. I'm not interested who Republicans or Libertarians, or Greens for that matter, want. Yes, I want to consider who will have the best chance in the GE, but ultimately, it's the party's decision.

[Sivart]

50. What about independents???

What about independents???

[Adrahil]

53. If they want in say in the Democratic Party nominee, I welcome them joining the party.

If they aren't committed enough to join the party, then they don't deserve a say. Again, I'll consider their opinions in determining my vote, but it's our party.

[Sivart]

58. But you dont have to join the party.....you just have to register as a Democrat.

You are making my point for me.

There is no such thing as joining the party. You simply need to register as a democrat. Republicans are allowed to register as democrats. So are independents.

There is literally no commitment involved whatsoever. You are kidding yourself if you think there is.

[Adrahil]

60. Registering is good enough for me. That is enough "joining"

And if there is no commitment to joining, and it's easy-peasy, why are so many Sandernistas, and Sanders himself complainng about closed primaries and calling for open ones?

The least we can ask for folks to actually bother registering for the party.

[SirBrockington]

46. I just think about operation chaos

When Republicans tried to manipulate results

[Sivart]

49. Opertation Chaos was a joke.....

If it was real, it failed. Many believe it was just Limbaugh trying to get people's goat.

Is there any data relative to the success of operation chaos?

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. Caucuses are much worse than closed primaries.

[JI7]

55. so why don't independent candidates do well ?

[Sivart]

56. Isnt it obvious?

Because they are not backed and supported via a national party organization.

[JI7]

57. so party organization means much more when it comes to winning

[Sivart]

59. Yes, I believe it clearly does.....which has nothing to do with the OP

The OP was not about what means the most when it comes to winning elections.