• 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 said:
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
Click to expand...

Personally, I believe the more open the political process, the better it is for both candidates and the electorate.

I envy Americans in that regard. Here in Canada, the party picks their leader and often the leader decides who the candidates will be in some ridings/districts and can veto any person who wants to seek a nomination if he/she doesn't meet the leader's perceived candidate qualifications. In addition, the ridings/districts select their candidate in closed meetings of party members only and since very few citizens are members of a party very few people choose candidates and often a savvy candidate will buy up a lot of new memberships in order to feather his/her vote count.

When the election comes, we don't get to vote for who will be Prime Minister - the party chooses - we just get to vote for the candidate running for the party that our preferred choice of Prime Minister represents. So we often either have to choose a candidate we don't want in order to hopefully get the Prime Minister we want or we choose a candidate we want and hope that doesn't give us a Prime Minister we don't want.

Don't ever begrudge the utter chaos, street fight like openness of your political process - it's what democracy should be all about and it's great to see it in action. In Canada, a Cantor wouldn't ever have been challenged let alone have lost his party's nomination.
 
Bad idea i think. If you knew a particular candidate in your favored party was going to win, you (and many others) could decide instead to screw over a candidate in the other party. Especially considering texas is deeply red pretty much always, most of the primary voters may very well have this in mind if a candidate has the repub nomination wrapped up by the time of the dem primary. I mean what does an extreme conservative care whether obama or hillary is prez?
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

Private political organizations should have absolute control over their method of choosing whom they endorse. This is an entirely private matter and is solely the business of the particular private organization. The government should not be involved in any fashion whatsoever, and publicly owned voting facilities should not be used for such private purposes.
 
X Factor said:
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).
Click to expand...

Hillary won Ohio and Texas soon after and extended the process an extra 2 months, divided Democrats on what were basically identical candidates and destroyed any idea of a Hillary vice-presidency. Yes, we definitely know how well that worked.
 
Kobie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this


BUT on a side note i dont know how it works in every state but here i can simply change my registration on line and then go vote. In fact i have to do this already since im an independant. anytime I want to vote a party for elections I have to register 30 days in advance if its a party vote.

so im not sure what it really stops and while i agree it can be bad whos to say people switch parties for BAD reasons? as an independent i should be discriminated against so im not sure theres a why to totally block votes without being unconstitutional
 
AGENT J said:
I agree with this


BUT on a side note i dont know how it works in every state but here i can simply change my registration on line and then go vote. In fact i have to do this already since im an independant. anytime I want to vote a party for elections I have to register 30 days in advance if its a party vote.

so im not sure what it really stops and while i agree it can be bad whos to say people switch parties for BAD reasons? as an independent i should be discriminated against so im not sure theres a why to totally block votes without being unconstitutional
Click to expand...

A political party should have the right to select whom they endorse by whatever mechanism they choose. It is not a legitimate government function to dictate to political parties (which are essentially clubs) how they go about choosing a candidate to endorse.
 
Green Man said:
1.)A political party should have the right to select whom they endorse by whatever mechanism they choose.
2.)It is not a legitimate government function to dictate to political parties (which are essentially clubs) how they go about choosing a candidate to endorse.
Click to expand...


1.)its not that i disagree im simply pointing out it seems like it cant rationally be done in an extreme manner and not violate rights IMO

what about independents, or parties that dont have a candidate or someone who decides to change?

i dont see how any "extreme" restrictions would work

2.) didnt say it was
 
AGENT J said:
1.)its not that i disagree im simply pointing out it seems like it cant rationally be done in an extreme manner and not violate rights IMO

what about independents
Click to expand...

If one isn't a member of a private organization, then he has no right to participate in the business of that organization.

, or parties that dont have a candidate or someone who decides to change?

i dont see how any "extreme" restrictions would work
Click to expand...

It is not something that requires government involvement. These are private organizations choosing whom they wish to endorse. They are clubs, not a part of the government.
2.) didnt say it was
Click to expand...

Then we are in agreement.
 
Green Man said:
1.)If one isn't a member of a private organization, then he has no right to participate in the business of that organization.
2.)It is not something that requires government involvement. These are private organizations choosing whom they wish to endorse. They are clubs, not a part of the government.


Then we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

parties are not private orgs they are open to the public
 
Green Man said:
1.)Parties are not government organization. They are private organizations, essentially clubs.
Click to expand...

1.) didnt say they were
2.) nope by definition they are not they are open to the public.

can they deny women from being members? how about christians? how about blacks?

private clubs can.

ive been a member of both at any time i wanted and there was nothing to do but say i was a member, can i do that with other private clubs?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) didnt say they were
2.) nope by definition they are not they are open to the public.

can they deny women from being members? how about christians? how about blacks?

private clubs can.

ive been a member of both at any time i wanted and there was nothing to do but say i was a member, can i do that with other private clubs?
Click to expand...

If they aren't a government institution, then you must recognize that they are private organization. As such, the mechanism they choose to select a candidate to endorse is obviously not a public policy decision. It is a private matter.
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

Not enough to fix America.

Open primaries does in theory push candidates to appeal to the broad range of voters, rather than the closed primaries that feed off a tiny fraction of often vocal, and completely unrepresentative set of voters.

Ideally, we'd have an open primary system where the top two vote getters of all the candidates advance to the next election. So you could have two Democrats or two Republicans advancing. Furthermore, it would have instant runoff so that people would actually vote for their top two choices.

This would alleviate some of the gerrymandering that's become a threat to national security. If we could combined open primaries, top two candidates advancing, and gerrymandering reform to make all districts as competitive as possible, we'd see the problems that have festered in the past two decades likely disappear.
 
Green Man said:
1.)If they aren't a government institution, then you must recognize that they are private organization.
2.) As such, the mechanism they choose to select a candidate to endorse is obviously not a public policy decision.
3.) It is a private matter.
Click to expand...


very telling you dodged my questions, why?

1.) no since again they are open to the public.
2.) again not talking about mechanism to select talking about who can be a member and thats anybody who is 18+ and a citizen which makes it public
3.) except its not. Can that party get together and privately decide no christians allowed? or football players? nope

why? because its public
 
AGENT J said:
very telling you dodged my questions, why?
Click to expand...

Did I miss a question? Hopefully I'll answer it here.

1.) no since again they are open to the public.
Click to expand...

Not all organizations that endorse candidates need to be open to the public. A candidate may be endorsed by any number of organizations. A candidate could be endorsed by the very exclusive Frog Holler Gentlemen's Society.

2.) again not talking about mechanism to select talking about who can be a member and thats anybody who is 18+ and a citizen which makes it public
Click to expand...

Who are you to dictate to a private organization whom they must permit to be members. I belong to an organization that only accepts members who have been recommended by an existing member. Private organizations can have their own rules of membership. Political parties are private organizations, not a part of the government.

3.) except its not. Can that party get together and privately decide no christians allowed? or football players? nope
Click to expand...

I think the exclusive "No Football Players Party" has already done so, and it is perfectly within their rights to do so. And they can endorse any candidate they choose.
 
Last edited:
As we discuss open versus closed for the Congress, it remains to be seen how much more RNC Chief Priebus can change with the states to control the POTUS nomination process.

This doesn't begin to address the allocation of delegates--winner-take-all versus proportional; and whether the process should be primary versus caucus.

Have fun with that 10th amendment .
 
X Factor said:
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
Click to expand...

Something to think about. Political parties are not in the Constitution, so good or bad is irrelevant, the question is are they constitutional.

It appears yes.

That being said I only like them if I can get a advantage out of it :lol:
 
Green Man said:
1.)Did I miss a question? Hopefully I'll answer it here.
2.)Not all organizations that endorse candidates need to be open to the public. A candidate may be endorsed by any number of organizations. A candidate could be endorsed by the very exclusive Frog Holler Gentlemen's Society.
3.)Who are you to dictate to a private organization whom they must permit to be members. I belong to an organization that only accepts members who have been recommended by an existing member.
4.) Private organizations can have their own rules of membership.
5.) Political parties are private organizations
6.), not a part of the government.
7.)I think the exclusive "No Football Players Party" has already done so, and it is perfectly within their rights to do so.
8.) And they can endorse any candidate they choose.
Click to expand...

1.) you ignored like 5 of them LOL
2.) didnt say they did, could you post somethign other than strawmen? none of this has any impact to what i said at all
3.) see #2 where did i say i get to dictate Lol oh thats right i didnt
4.) 100% correct and the republican party factually can not, thank you for proving my point
5.) you already [roved for me that they are factually not
6.) didnt say they were another failed starwman
7.) no it factually is not within thier rights lol
8.) yes people can endorse who they want. meaningless to the discussion.

do you have anythign that is accurate and actually matters?

can the republicans not allow christians, males, blacks or women's to be members? answer? no
can a private org? yes

thats the game
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you ignored like 5 of them LOL
2.) didnt say they did, could you post somethign other than strawmen? none of this has any impact to what i said at all
3.) see #2 where did i say i get to dictate Lol oh thats right i didnt
4.) 100% correct and the republican party factually can not, thank you for proving my point
5.) you already [roved for me that they are factually not
6.) didnt say they were another failed starwman
7.) no it factually is not within thier rights lol
8.) yes people can endorse who they want. meaningless to the discussion.

do you have anythign that is accurate and actually matters?

can the republicans not allow christians, males, blacks or women's to be members? answer? no
can a private org? yes

thats the game
Click to expand...

As I said in response to the OP, I think a political party should have the right to select whom they endorse by whatever mechanism they choose. I don't consider it a legitimate government function to dictate to political parties (a non-governmental organization) how they go about choosing a candidate to endorse. Please note, that I am NOT saying you said anything, but am simply giving my opinion in response to the OP.
 
Hatuey said:
Hillary won Ohio and Texas soon after and extended the process an extra 2 months, divided Democrats on what were basically identical candidates and destroyed any idea of a Hillary vice-presidency. Yes, we definitely know how well that worked.
Click to expand...

Didn't she win Kentucky too as a result?

It also forced Obama's campaign to spend more in the primary they could have saved for the general.

I need to check the timeline history but it's possible Operation Chaos helped Obama beat McCain in 2008. If I'm not mistaken Hillary Clinton's campaign unleased much of their "kitchen sink" strategy after operation chaos in a last ditch effort to win the democrat primary. This got all of Obama's skeletons out of the closet in the primary with plenty of time to execute an effective damage control response, allow the American people to get over it and by November it was all ancient news that nobody cared about anymore robbing the republicans of any "October Surprise" opportunity. Its crazy but possible Obama owes his election in 2008 in part to Rush Limbaugh and passionate conservative talk radio fans.
 
Last edited:
Green Man said:
1.)As I said in response to the OP, I think a political party should have the right to select whom they endorse by whatever mechanism they choose.
2.)I don't consider it a legitimate government function to dictate to political parties (a non-governmental organization) how they go about choosing a candidate to endorse.
3.)Please note, that I am NOT saying you said anything, but am simply giving my opinion in response to the OP.
Click to expand...

1.) still dont disagree nor have i said otherwise
2.) also didnt say this either
3.)then i guess you shouldnt have quoted me and it still remains the parties are public not private
 
NIMBY said:
As we discuss open versus closed for the Congress, it remains to be seen how much more RNC Chief Priebus can change with the states to control the POTUS nomination process.

This doesn't begin to address the allocation of delegates--winner-take-all versus proportional; and whether the process should be primary versus caucus.

Have fun with that 10th amendment .
Click to expand...

On the proportional awarding of delegates or electoral votes by congressional district or winner take all is that it dilutes the clout of the bigger states. Hence this is why only Maine (4) and Nebraska (5) do it. States love it when presidential candidate visit and campaign in their state. Whether in the primary or general election. Take the swing state of Ohio, 18 EV. If Ohio distributed their delegates in the primary or their electoral votes via congressional district, even if Ohio was a swing state would that mean more or less visits by the candidates? Probably less as a candidate would have to visit all 16 congressional districts to have the same impact one visit would have if it was winner take all. The political power of the state of Ohio as a whole would be diluted if all delegates and electoral votes were awarded by CD. Because of this I do not think you will see any more states going the way of Maine and Nebraska.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) still dont disagree nor have i said otherwise
2.) also didnt say this either
3.)then i guess you shouldnt have quoted me and it still remains the parties are public not private
Click to expand...

A political party is a non-governmental organization. Because of this, I can see no reason for the government to dictate how they manage their affairs, including how they select a candidate to endorse.
 
Green Man said:
A political party is a non-governmental organization.
2.)Because of this, I can see no reason for the government to dictate how they manage their affairs, including how they select a candidate to endorse.
Click to expand...

1.) never said otherwise, meaningless to the party being public. Keep re-posting this straw man though it will fail every time.
2.) also meaningless to them being public.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) never said otherwise,
Click to expand...

Never said you said otherwise.

meaningless to the party being public. Keep re-posting this straw man though it will fail every time.
Click to expand...

A straw man is a misstatement of another's position. I have made no statement regarding your position, so I haven't posted any straw man

2.) also meaningless to them being public.
Click to expand...

Them being public (in your opinion) is meaningless to my response to the OP. My response was that I don't think the government should be involved at all in how a political party goes about deciding which candidate it will endorse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom