View Poll Results: Should we have a national open primary?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 25.00%
  • No

    24 75.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: National Open Primary

  1. #1
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    OC, CA
    Last Seen
    10-08-11 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    238

    National Open Primary

    In California we are going to vote on a proposition to make all state primaries open - legislature, congress, governor... basically everything but for President of the United States.

    This means that there is no Republican primary, and there is no Democratic primary. There is just one primary and the two front runners from that primary go on to be the ONLY two candidates that can be voted upon in the final election. This means that the winner actually will have the majority of the votes (from those that vote in the final election) of the applicable constituents.

    Should we have a National Open Primary?

  2. #2
    It's Just Boris.
    Bassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West end of the Erie Canal (That's Buffalo, NY for those of you in Rio Linda)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,699

    Re: National Open Primary

    Absolutely not! Open primaries are how the GOP got saddled with McStain in the first place. Keep primaries exclusively to the representative parties.


    11/8/16: A day of great relief for America

  3. #3
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: National Open Primary

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightarrow View Post
    In California we are going to vote on a proposition to make all state primaries open - legislature, congress, governor... basically everything but for President of the United States.

    This means that there is no Republican primary, and there is no Democratic primary. There is just one primary and the two front runners from that primary go on to be the ONLY two candidates that can be voted upon in the final election. This means that the winner actually will have the majority of the votes (from those that vote in the final election) of the applicable constituents.

    Should we have a National Open Primary?
    Yeah. And it should be federal law that all elections be conducted that way, especially the ones for president.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  4. #4
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: National Open Primary

    I'm on the wall on this one. I'd love voting to be as simple as this. However I'm willing to bet a larger part of the population will refuse to vote if their candidate is not in the final two.

    So will they ACTUALLY have the majority vote when someone wins? Probably not.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: National Open Primary

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightarrow View Post
    In California we are going to vote on a proposition to make all state primaries open - legislature, congress, governor... basically everything but for President of the United States.

    This means that there is no Republican primary, and there is no Democratic primary. There is just one primary and the two front runners from that primary go on to be the ONLY two candidates that can be voted upon in the final election. This means that the winner actually will have the majority of the votes (from those that vote in the final election) of the applicable constituents.

    Should we have a National Open Primary?
    No way, make each party pay for it's own primary election.

    Your guaranteed to exclude everyone who isn't a populist as well.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #6
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    OC, CA
    Last Seen
    10-08-11 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    238

    Re: National Open Primary

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    I'm on the wall on this one. I'd love voting to be as simple as this. However I'm willing to bet a larger part of the population will refuse to vote if their candidate is not in the final two.

    So will they ACTUALLY have the majority vote when someone wins? Probably not.
    Like I said, they will have the majority of the votes of people who voted in the final election. Less than 50% of the population even votes at all right now, so no candidate will ever get the majority vote of everyone. Not to mention that with the current primaries, people still refuse to vote when their candidate is not chosen.

  7. #7
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: National Open Primary

    This is basically a variant of the runoff election (which is a good idea). However, I'm more skeptical about this idea than I am about runoffs. The purpose of a primary is to narrow the list of ideologically-similar candidates down from many to one, so that everyone of a certain ideology can rally behind that candidate.

    A "national open primary" which would replace the primaries of political parties would have all sorts of problems with vote-gaming. For example, suppose that there are six Republicans and two Democrats seeking an office. Even in the reddest districts, it would probably be the two Democrats advancing to the runoff, because they aren't splitting the vote among as many different people. That's not really fair.

    Political primaries eliminate this problem. The Republicans decide which Republican they want to rally around, the Democrats decide which Democrat they want to rally around, and then the voters as a whole decide which candidate they like better. Having political primaries, while not perfect, is much more representative of what the people actually want.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 05-15-10 at 03:39 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #8
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    OC, CA
    Last Seen
    10-08-11 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    238

    Re: National Open Primary

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is basically a variant of the runoff election (which is a good idea). However, I'm more skeptical about this idea than I am about runoffs. The purpose of a primary is to narrow the list of ideologically-similar candidates down from many to one, so that everyone of a certain ideology can rally behind that candidate.

    A "national open primary" which would replace the primaries of political parties would have all sorts of problems with vote-gaming. For example, suppose that there are six Republicans and two Democrats seeking an office. Even in the reddest districts, it would probably be the two Democrats advancing to the runoff, because they aren't splitting the vote among as many different people. That's not really fair.

    Political primaries eliminate this problem. The Republicans decide which Republican they want to rally around, the Democrats decide which Democrat they want to rally around, and then the voters as a whole decide which candidate they like better. Having political primaries, while not perfect, is much more representative of what the people actually want.
    Excellent points. However, there has to be a way to shove out the fringe parties and be left with two candidates that represent the most conservatives on the one end and most liberals on the other. I just can't stand fringe parties stealing votes from real candidates. Look what happened in England because of the fringe parties.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: National Open Primary

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightarrow View Post
    Excellent points. However, there has to be a way to shove out the fringe parties and be left with two candidates that represent the most conservatives on the one end and most liberals on the other. I just can't stand fringe parties stealing votes from real candidates. Look what happened in England because of the fringe parties.
    There is no such thing as stealing votes, unless you physically open a ballot box and change the way people voted.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: National Open Primary

    I'm in favor of the idea. It would lessen the stranglehold that the corrupt and entrenched Democratic and Republican parties have on politics in this nation.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •