If we don't have primaries anymore, who gets to pick our candidates?

[madfloridian]

Our Florida party leaders have been passing the word to "discourage" primaries and save our funds for the general election. I have been hearing others speak about how "costly" primaries are, and wonder about their expediency.

That sounds practical, doesn't it? My question is who gets to pick the candidates. It sounds like the old "smoke-filled" room concept.

Definition of a primary election.

"A primary election is a nominating election in which a candidate is chosen by a political party. A primary election can be either open or closed. If a primary election is closed, only those who are members of the respective party may vote. An open primary is one in which any eligible voter, regardless of party affiliation, may vote."

Definition of a General Election.

"A general election is an election held to choose among candidates nominated in a primary (or by convention or caucus) for federal, state and local office. The purpose of a general election is to make a final choice among the various candidates who have been nominated by parties or who are running as independent or write-in candidates."

http://www.magazineusa.com/lv2/politics_elections/i_election_def_primary_general.asp

So who gets to pick if not the voters?

[bluestateguy]

1. Primaries are good, when they are closed to registered party members

I'd rather have smoke filled rooms and conventions do the nominations if the alternative is open primaries.

[MrCoffee]

2. does FL have open or closed primaries?

[Sensitivity]

3. debate must be between PRIMARY and CAUCUS. Both are legal. Primary costs more

[SouthernBelle82]

5. To me the primary though is more important

It may cost more but it's the most important because the people are deciding who their reps are. Others may not like it and wish for another candidate if they're an outsider but this way it makes it so the people get to decide either way whether others agree or not instead of the party elite choosing. I don't like open primary's and I choose to not vote in them. Plus sometimes the will of the people of that political party in that region don't get the candidate they wish they had when others can freely come in and choose the candidate and not share that political party's beliefs whether it's democratic or republican.

[Totally Committed]

4. People like Carville will take their "client" and their client's "deal"

to the Party mucka-mucks and some corporate elite, and the candidate that cuts the best deal will get the nomination. I'm not so sure that isn't how it's happening now, but without a primary to hide it all, that's the system that would be out in the open.

TC

[Bitwit1234]

6. Maybe the are going to Canada's choices

I talked to a relative connection whose branch of the family immigrated to Alberta Canada in the late 1800's. He explained to me that the PM picks the representatives to cover the providence they live in. They only vote for the PM. Maybe that is what Florida is leaning to..That way they will be sure when bush or the republican president steals office they will appoint all republicans.

[lonehalf]

7. Primaries are good, I think.

But candidates are still picked by the party officials.

In my county I don't believe anyone who qualified and wasn't endorsed by the party has ever won the primary.

This process used to be called the "smoke filled room".

[MrCoffee]

8. open primaries are awful, imho.

unless you can demonstrate that, somehow, it's actually the party (by which i mean the citizens who can show a registered affiliation with that party) picking the candidate, the open primary is fraught with peril.

[sallyseven]

9. In MA. we have the caucus system and vote in

convention system by party. I donot favor the primary because anyone can vote. If they want someone else let them get off their behinds and go to the caucus. Start their own party if they want. I do not like Indi or Unenrolled voting in the priamry and trying to screw up the party choice. Smacks of republicanism