• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Open Primaries Good or Bad?

Open Primaries


  • Total voters
    47

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll
 
Last edited:
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll

A open primary in that sense I oppose due to the fact the other side can simply vote for a candidate they know does not stand a chance or a candidate that is more in line with their views instead of the party's actual views. For example democrats could vote in a republican primary for a off the wall republican that has no chance of winning in a main election so that their guy wins in a main election. Or republicans can vote a conservative democrat in a democrat primary so that they do not lose regardless of who wins in a main election. Elected officials can be dishonest and so can die-hard party-tards and will resort to rigging the system in their favor.

A open primary where everybody runs regardless of party and if none of those candidates got 50% of the vote then the top two - three regardless of party run against each other for the main election.
 
Last edited:
I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.
 
Since I vote for both republican and democratic candidates in nearly every election (I care about the philosophy and qualifications of the individual, don't give a fat rat's ass about political party), I think open primaries are great!
 
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll

I like them too, in Georgia you just register to vote, not by party. Come primary time one can pick and choose. But we have runoffs here where if a candidate doesn't receive 50% of the vote plus one, the top two candidates face off again. This year the primaries were held on May 20th, the runoff will be on July 22nd. As a Reform Party member, I too think it is great.
 
A open primary in that sense I oppose due to the fact the other side can simply vote for a candidate they know does not stand a chance or a candidate that is more in line with their views instead of the party's actual views. For example democrats could vote in a republican primary for a off the wall republican that has no chance of winning in a main election so that their guy wins in a main election. Or republicans can vote a conservative democrat in a democrat primary so that they do not lose regardless of who wins in a main election.

A open primary where everybody runs regardless of party and if none of those candidates got 50% of the vote then the top two - three regardless of party run against each other for the main election.

I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.

To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most).
 
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll
I like the concept of being able to vote against somebody. Since that isn't how our elections operate allowing us to vote for both parties candidates gives us that ability
 
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most).

A statewide primary would be much more difficult in which to pull it off; however, it happened in 2008 in New Hampshire. Romney won among registered Republicans; however, McCain pulled a lot of non-Republican votes and won the Republican nomination. Why should non-Republicans (or Democrats) get to choose the Republican (or Democratic) nominee?
 
I actually think they are bad. A political party has the right to prevent non-members from choosing its candidates for office. It opens them to sabotage from opposition forces.

This happens anyways. There is some evidence of this taking place. Exhibit A George Bush, Exhibit B John Kerry, Exhibit C John Mccain, Exhibit D Barrack Obama, Exhibit E Mitt Romney.

This is a part of the game. I think open primaries just gives people less incentive to be dishonest about their party affiliation.
 
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll

I don't think there should be publicly funded primaries. Whoever is on the ballot should be voted for or not Nov.4. If a party wants to have a primary race to select their candidate they can organize and pay for it and run it. The state should have no involvement whatsoever.
 
A statewide primary would be much more difficult in which to pull it off; however, it happened in 2008 in New Hampshire. Romney won among registered Republicans; however, McCain pulled a lot of non-Republican votes and won the Republican nomination. Why should non-Republicans (or Democrats) get to choose the Republican (or Democratic) nominee?

Maybe because they feel that one of the people (from whichever primary) is the best candidate. As I mentioned in that other thread, I often vote in the Dem primary - not to try to nominate someone more likely to lose in the general election (more often than not there's not even a Republican candidate running) but because I know the people involved and I know who would make the better judge (or whatever elected office).
 
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. .


I think you are overestimating how much effort it would take considering the fact that the more local an election the less registered voters in that district will vote and primaries do not draw as many registered voters as the main election. People who tend to vote in all these elections regardless of how local or how national that election is tend to be political diehards.It wouldn't take much effort for them to vote a particular war to rig the main elections in their favor.

In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most)

1. The vast majority of registered voters do not listen to Rush Limbaugh or even have any idea who he is.
2. Just because you listen to a pundit's show doesn't mean you actually agree with that pundit's political views.
3. Only 20 states have open or semi-closed presidential primaries.
 
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll

I've always wondered why a group of people would start a club and then allow people who are not part of the club have a say in their decisions. Seems like a pretty dumb thing to do.
 
An open primary might or seems to work in states like Georgia or Texas but what about states like California that has a large population of stupid people ?

An uneducated elector who are clueless on the issues and even the candidates ?

In Los Angeles County 50% of those of the work force are legally illiterate or functionally illiterate. But they are voting.

These are the same people who voted for having open primaries in California.
 
An open primary might or seems to work in states like Georgia or Texas but what about states like California that has a large population of stupid people ?

An uneducated elector who are clueless on the issues and even the candidates ?

In Los Angeles County 50% of those of the work force are legally illiterate or functionally illiterate. But they are voting.

These are the same people who voted for having open primaries in California.

No stupid people in Georgia or Texas! No, sir!
 
If a party wants to have a primary race to select their candidate they can organize and pay for it and run it. The state should have no involvement whatsoever.

Wow! This something that I have never considered. Presidential candidates are decided at the Party Convention. It would be pretty sweet if our local parties could pick candidates to represent the party. This is a brilliant idea. I really like it.
 
To do that, I think there would have to be a lot more coordination than is, frankly, possible. In fact, Rush Limbaugh tried to get people voting for Hillary in 2008 (calling it Operation Chaos) and we see how well that worked (and Rush has a much bigger platform than most).

I was a participant in Operation Chaos. I brought a cool sign to a Hillary Clinton rally that said, "Rush Republicans for Hillary." The word Republican had a line drawn through it and the word Democrat was written above it. I waited to see Bill Clinton for over 7 hours and they ended up taking my sign away for security reasons.

I did get to see Bill Clinton. That was pretty cool.

I voted for Hillary in 2008 and I hope to vote for her again in 2016.
 
Why should non-Republicans (or Democrats) get to choose the Republican (or Democratic) nominee?

They can temporarily join the party and do the same thing anyways. Having an open primary just makes less work for the local Boards of Election. Nobody has to switch parties every 2 years just to play games.
 
An open primary might or seems to work in states like Georgia or Texas but what about states like California that has a large population of stupid people ?

An uneducated elector who are clueless on the issues and even the candidates ?

In Los Angeles County 50% of those of the work force are legally illiterate or functionally illiterate. But they are voting.

These are the same people who voted for having open primaries in California.

:thinking I voted that the white crayon serves no purpose. I guess it doesn't really make much impact either way. States should just keep their traditions in place.
 
Open Primaries Good or Bad?

good idea. i don't want to sign up for either team, but i want to vote in the primaries. my state forces me to sign up for a ****ing team to do that.
 
This just came up in another thread. I live in an open primary state (Texas). That simply means you don't register as a party member and you can vote in either the Dem or the Repub primary election (not both, of course). I think it's a good thing (although it is a little scary how many people don't understand it here and still think they're registered with a party just by voting in that primary) but I guess the argument against it is that people from the "other side" could all vote in your primary to try to get a candidate nominated that has less of a chance against the guy from that "other side".

What do you think?

Working on poll

My personal opinion is that so long as a political party is willing to foot the cost for its ballot then open ballot laws are unconstitutional and wrong. As to whether its good or bad I'm not sure because I don't have much experience with it other than what I've seen at the Presidential level where it doesn't seem to have much of an impact either way. Though my gut would tell me that it seems dangerous to open up party nomination campaigns to members of another party or persuasion with a vested interest in voting 'tactically'. I'd probably defer to a closed primary. If you want a say in their ballot just register.
 
Back
Top Bottom