2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Closed Primaries, At This Point In A Race, Make The Most Sense [View all]
As we get closer to the closed primaries that begin with New York, I keep seeing people arguing that a closed primary is a form of 'disenfranchisement' or 'voter suppression'.
Where do people get the idea that they have the right to participate in a party, when they aren't members of it?
If a state decides they want to allow open primaries, I will disagree with them, but it's within their rights by the rules. Likewise, if a state wants to run a closed primary, I fail to see what makes it undemocratic. So long as everyone knows the rules beforehand, making sure you're a member of a party is not an invasive step to make sure you get to have your say.
There's a reason why closed primaries, especially at this stage of the contest, are a good thing. Imagine we are approaching New York in a tightly contested contest, while the Republicans have already all but selected their nominee. If we had a string of open primaries left, there would be nothing stopping the Republican party from crossing over en masse, and voting in the Democratic primary to make sure the weaker candidate gets put over the top. Does that sound fair?
Or, imagine in four years when they have to find a candidate to run against our incumbent. Should we Democrats be allowed to all go vote in the Republican primary, to make sure that an unelectable candidate gets the nomination? Does that sound fair?
At a certain point in the race, we have enough evidence of how independent voters feel to factor it into our evaluation of our own candidates. But for the protection of our process, we need to shut off the possibility of outside influence to make sure that we are indeed picking out own candidate.