Open Primaries Good or Bad?

Kobie said:

I understand that, and believe me, I'm not particularly married to this issue.

Court decisions have been largely split on the issue. The SCOTUS in 1999 ruled in favor of the California Democratic Party (which sued to have a referendum that approved open primaries to be overturned) on the basis of free association. But, there have been other rulings in favor of open primaries.



IMHO, that would exacerbate some of our problems without other laws put into place. As it stands now, a party candidate can receive funding from a larger umbrella organization. If it were every man for himself, the rich guy could simply outspend the poor guy into oblivion.

Why shouldn't likeminded people be allowed to pool resources to elect a candidate they feel represents their values? That's basically what a political party is.

And yes, I feel corporations and unions should be allowed to do that as well. Disclosure, however, is necessary. Before I vote for a candidate, I want to know who owns him or her.

Click to expand...

i feel like our country has been fractured by partisan idiots. the rest of the fracturing has been accomplished via gerrymandering. at the very least, i'd support drawing districts using only nonpartisan census data.

our two party duopoly is not working. i'm sick of it.

X Factor said:

I'm sure you're right and there are no long time Democrat senators and term limit laws specifically exempt Republicans.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice that I said there are no longtime Democratic Senators--that's because I didn't.
And term limit laws specifically exempting Republicans--didn't say that either.

I will add that term limits were a big plank of Gringrich's contract on America in 1994.
And term limits were once again a BFD with the GOP in 2010, since the TEA have no agenda but blowing up DC, rhetorically mind you .

Helix said:

i feel like our country has been fractured by partisan idiots.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more.

Helix said:

the rest of the fracturing has been accomplished via gerrymandering. at the very least, i'd support drawing districts using only nonpartisan census data.

Click to expand...

DEFINITELY could not agree more. The players are gaming the refs, and it's totally dicked everything up.

Helix said:

our two party duopoly is not working. i'm sick of it.

Click to expand...

I agree, but at this point I don't see a better option. The UK, for example, has several viable parties who have to hammer out coalitions to get anything done.

X Factor said:

*chuckle*

I was wondering if anyone would choose that option.

Click to expand...

My county is anticipated to become 100% represented by Republicans after this election is over in November. We had a very hot Sheriff's race in the Republican Primary. There was quite a few voters pissed off people at the polls during the primary race because they were "being denied their constitutional right to vote" as it was described by one angry registered Libertarian. North Carolina is a state that doesn't allow open primaries. "I guess I'll just switch to Repubilcan" said another angry registered Democrat. Our local party is jumping on this opportunity to recruit a bunch of Republicans. For the first time in over a century, North Carolina has a republican governor, republican house and a republican senate. I think if they make a law allowing open primaries, it would be detrimental to their own party. I keep going back and forth on this. I can see the positives and the negatives. I'll have to stand behind my choice to recognize the white crayon as having a neutral effect on the quality of a picture.

I support open primaries completely because I think there are a lot of people out there, registered to a party and not, who want more moderate candidates. There are a lot more people who do not agree fully with any party's platform completely than there are that agree with a party's platform fully. And candidates need to be able to represent all people, not just those that agree with a specific party's platform more than the majority of people.

Helix said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then I recommend that you remain unaffiliated. :rwbelepha

Buck Ewer said:

Ask Eric Cantor tonite, what he thinks of open primaries.:lamo
Does anyone really think that all of Brat's votes were from republicons?

Click to expand...

Is he from Virginia? I think somebody posted a link earlier that lists the states with open primaries. Virginia does have open primaries. :violin: :violin Eric Cantor is probably in opposition to open primaries.

I believe that the party candidate should be picked by those in the party. I do think that if the state is administering the elections, that they can set the rules. I'm generally in favor of California's top 2 in the primary go on to the general election regardless of party. I'm not sure if they are still allowed to have write-in's in the General.

vasuderatorrent said:

Then I recommend that you remain unaffiliated. :rwbelepha

Click to expand...

doing so would prevent me from voting in the primaries. that's the way it's set up here in my state.

Helix said:

doing so would prevent me from voting in the primaries.

Click to expand...

That is correct. I don't want you voting in the Republican Primary.

vasuderatorrent said:

That is correct. I don't want you voting in the Republican Primary.

Click to expand...

i'll vote in whichever primary i choose. however, i shouldn't have to pick one of your stupid teams in order to do so.

Helix said:

i'll vote in whichever primary i choose.

Click to expand...

How?

Helix said:

however, i shouldn't have to pick one of your stupid teams in order to do so.

Click to expand...

Which is it? You have to pick a stupid team? or you can vote in whichever primary that you choose?

vasuderatorrent said:

How?

Click to expand...

i can choose my partisan affiliation each time i vote in a primary.

vasuderatorrent said:

Which is it? You have to pick a stupid team? or you can vote in whichever primary that you choose?

Click to expand...

the candidates should all be on one ballot, and i should be able to vote for any of them that i want. i'm not a fan of partisan primaries. i should have the chance to vote for any candidate that i want to vote for in the primary without the artificial partisan bottleneck.

Kobie said:

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?

Click to expand...

Almost half (somewhere around 45%) of NH voters are independent and have a choice on Primary day which party's Primary we want to vote in. If I remember right, most of the independent voters in 2008 voted in the Dem primary instead of the Republican primary.

McCain was going to win in NH in 2008 no matter what anyway.

DiAnna said:

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!

Click to expand...

I know as an independent, we kind of get screwed over in the primaries.

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Now that's a great idea.

vasuderatorrent said:

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.

Click to expand...

So do I.

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?

Click to expand...

Working on poll

Click to expand...

I believe that open primaries are good for the left and bad for the right.

In about thirty years the main reason why I say this will be obvious.

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...

I'm conflicted. I think the idea of the secret ballot is important. Closed primaries means voters must have their political ideology filed with the government by virtue of declaring a party affiliation. At the same time, I think open primaries make American democracy vulnerable to dishonesty and "legal" corruption as we saw in 2008 where I wondered for the first time if America was an example to the world on how advanced societies elect their leaders or if third world countries were becoming the example to America. I honesty cannot think of a perfect solution.

I also oppose giving Iowa and New Hampshire the job of narrowing down the field of candidates the rest of the country gets to vote on each and every Presidential election. I say set 10 primary dates and let every state pick groups of 5 states (or more considering Washington, DC, the territories and Americans overseas.) State groups can change each election at the states' discretion. Then by random drawing schedule each team to one of those 10 primary dates. It just dawned in me it might be a little unfair to allow California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Pennsylvania to be in the same group so maybe say only one of the huge states can be in any one group.

I don't have a problem with an open primary where the top 2 candidates advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation. I do, however, think open primaries where you have to vote in one designated party a bad idea. It serves no purpose other than allowing people to cross party affiliation in order to ultimately disrupt the candidates that will compete in the GE. Rarely is it successful, but whats the advantage of allowing the possibility?

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...

I live in TX as well and have never seen a problem with the open primary here. Most people want to vote for something they believe in. A win at all cost mentality that drives the sort of thing that has folks crossing over to disrupt is reserved for the small minority of rabid partisans.

vasuderatorrent said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's the way it used to be done, then some bastard suckered us into paying for their primary.

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...

I like it. It is sort of like having a "NO" option for a candidate. We should always have a "NO" option, in my opinion.

Kobie said:

There is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own political party if they don't like the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Conservatives ... except for our campaign finance laws. THAT'S what needs changing. Open primaries will do nothing to alter that dichotomy.

Click to expand...

It is true that anyone can start a political party. Constitutionally you can associate with anyone that you choose. But voting along faction lines deprives this nation of the diversity of thought needed in a complex system. We have degenerated down to a handful of factions that compete for power.

Not that I am really pushing for banning political parties. I realize that would be a hard sale, probably more like a impossible sale. But through what you mentioned campaign finance laws we could take some of these factions powers away. The number one place that big money (or whatever you want to call corruption) filters its power into US government is through political parties.

I admit that there can be good sides to political parties. The free association of thoughts and ideas flows well among like minded people organized to bring those ideas to fruit. But in the last century I dont see a lot of that happening. That is because its been a two party system that as of lately has stopped working together and now against each other. I belong to neither party. I see them both as the biggest problem that this nation faces today. You can call me biased but at least give the people a chance to chose what assholes they get to vote for.


Locally in my State I would have liked to have had the chance to get someone running against the Governor that could actually replace her. But the Democrats voted for a idiot that has no chance in ousting her. It comes down to political power and the people are left out of the loop.

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...

The franchise is determined by the state and not the political parties.

"Stupid" would probably be the best choice.

The purpose of a primary is for a party to choose it's candidate.