Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Is it really a good idea to get rid of closed primaries? [View all]-none
(1,884 posts)47. Closed primaries allow the party leaders to disenfranchise many millions of people, by picking who
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I believe that only registered Democrats should choose their nominee. Others are not
Trust Buster
Jun 2016
#1
Everyone gets to vote in November. Primaries choose candidates, not government officials.
YouDig
Jun 2016
#8
I do not buy the premise that closed primaries are necessary to keep Republicans from voting in them
NorthCarolina
Jun 2016
#18
What I believe to be truly Democratic is for voters to simply be "registered to vote".
NorthCarolina
Jun 2016
#33
A lot of Bill Clinton's support in 1992 was from moderate independents and Republicans.
Zynx
Jun 2016
#68
closed primaries are for a reason and those reasons are completely justified
beachbum bob
Jun 2016
#7
That's a valid argument. But would you still feel that way if open primaries helped Bloomberg
YouDig
Jun 2016
#15
Bernie made a big deal of it, not me. He made a big deal of it during the campaign,
YouDig
Jun 2016
#20
Did Bernie post this OP? No, you did. Am I speaking with Bernie? No, I'm speaking to you.
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2016
#22
Holy shit! You wrote this just because Bernie recommends open primaries? Then you admit
floriduck
Jun 2016
#54
You wrote the OP. Then you add post#31, which is contradictory. Are you still confused by my
floriduck
Jun 2016
#59
This business about open primaries bringing new people into the process, and also the premise...
George II
Jun 2016
#17
Two parties defacto control government. That makes them more than closed clubs.
Tom Rinaldo
Jun 2016
#21
Independents choose to exclude themselves. All they need to do to vote in primaries is register
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#41
The Democratic Party is open to all eligible voters (and younger, as "Young Democrats")
George II
Jun 2016
#44
That's not true, members of other clubs can put up a candidates and get support and votes, and....
George II
Jun 2016
#50
get rid of superdelegates and caucuses, states determine primary rules anyways nt
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#23
I'm okay with getting rid of superdelegates. That would have determined our nominee weeks ago.
George II
Jun 2016
#45
let them vote on convention rules and platform, but not the prez race, maybe
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#46
I'm ok with getting rid of caucuses, but I think Democratic primaries should be for Democrats
CanonRay
Jun 2016
#39
Closed primaries allow the party leaders to disenfranchise many millions of people, by picking who
-none
Jun 2016
#47
Open early is ok. Closed after the halfway point, to prevent Rs from tampering if they've picked.
CrowCityDem
Jun 2016
#56
Bernie did better in open primaries than he did in closed ones, is what I meant.
YouDig
Jun 2016
#64
I think independents should always get to vote in the primary of their choice.
phleshdef
Jun 2016
#66