• 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!

National Open Primary

Should we have a national open primary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • Total voters
    14
R

Rightarrow

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
238
Reaction score
48
Location
OC, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Absolutely not! Open primaries are how the GOP got saddled with McStain in the first place. Keep primaries exclusively to the representative parties.
 
Rightarrow said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah. And it should be federal law that all elections be conducted that way, especially the ones for president.
 
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.
 
Rightarrow said:
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?
Click to expand...

No way, make each party pay for it's own primary election.

Your guaranteed to exclude everyone who isn't a populist as well.
 
Jucon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rightarrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as stealing votes, unless you physically open a ballot box and change the way people voted.
 
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.
 
What do you call Scott Ashjian in Nevada? He was intentionally planted to take votes away from the Republican candidate.
 
Rightarrow said:
What do you call Scott Ashjian in Nevada? He was intentionally planted to take votes away from the Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

Did he open the ballot box and remove them?
Nope, he wanted to persuade people to vote for him.

Guess what, Republicans and Democrats do not own the electoral system.
I know it's a surprise, given all the ignorant people that continue to vote for them.

Besides Republicans were a third party. :doh
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Did he open the ballot box and remove them?
Nope, he wanted to persuade people to vote for him.

Guess what, Republicans and Democrats do not own the electoral system.
I know it's a surprise, given all the ignorant people that continue to vote for them.

Besides Republicans were a third party. :doh
Click to expand...

This is such a fallacy. The Whig party didn't even have a candidate when the Republicans came on the scene. They were a new party, but never a third party. BTW, I am for third party candidates when they have a chance of winning. A perfect example was Doug Hoffman in NY 23rd. I don't care what party the candidate belongs to, I just want him to have a chance of winning. Voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning just so that you "feel good" is such waste and usually results in the country not only not going exactly how you wanted, but going in the complete wrong direction because your vote and others like it made the candidate closer to your political views lose.
 
Rightarrow said:
This is such a fallacy. The Whig party didn't even have a candidate when the Republicans came on the scene. They were a new party, but never a third party. BTW, I am for third party candidates when they have a chance of winning. A perfect example was Doug Hoffman in NY 23rd. I don't care what party the candidate belongs to, I just want him to have a chance of winning. Voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning just so that you "feel good" is such waste and usually results in the country not only not going exactly how you wanted, but going in the complete wrong direction because your vote and others like it made the candidate closer to your political views lose.
Click to expand...

It is the truth.
If Democrats didn't run a candidate next year would the Green Party still be a third party, absolutely.

I don't vote and at the same time I don't want the strangle hold of D's/R's to continue to exist.
You do know that they control the election system enough to exclude others as it is.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It is the truth.
If Democrats didn't run a candidate next year would the Green Party still be a third party, absolutely.

I don't vote and at the same time I don't want the strangle hold of D's/R's to continue to exist.
You do know that they control the election system enough to exclude others as it is.
Click to expand...

Ok. How about we look at the facts. The Whig party was gone in 1856. The Republican Party was founded in 1854. This would not be comparable to the Green Party replacing the Democrats, since the Green party has been around since at least 1991 and have never had a chance of winning in all the time they've been around. The Republicans were never a party that didn't have a chance of winning. They have been on the forefront since they were founded.

The Republicans and the Democrats don't control the election system. The voters vote for them because they know that they are the best chance for a winner. People generally don't vote for a loser. Only small crazy portions of the population do that. Luckily, that portion is smaller here than in the UK, but it is still too big in my opinion.
 
Rightarrow said:
Ok. How about we look at the facts. The Whig party was gone in 1856. The Republican Party was founded in 1854. This would not be comparable to the Green Party replacing the Democrats, since the Green party has been around since at least 1991 and have never had a chance of winning in all the time they've been around. The Republicans were never a party that didn't have a chance of winning. They have been on the forefront since they were founded.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, before Lincoln was elected they were not a mainstream party.

Rightarrow said:
The Republicans and the Democrats don't control the election system. The voters vote for them because they know that they are the best chance for a winner. People generally don't vote for a loser. Only small crazy portions of the population do that. Luckily, that portion is smaller here than in the UK, but it is still too big in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No they pretty much control the whole thing.
They write the laws for ballot access and they dump their primary costs on the taxpayer.

No other party can do that.

If you think the 2 major parties are good, I've got news for you.
Take a look at the national debt for the past 30-40 years.
Under both parties, it has grown crazily high added with the restriction on personal rights.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Doesn't matter, before Lincoln was elected they were not a mainstream party.
Click to expand...

Six years before Lincoln was elected, these guys were barely in the backwoods. Nobody had even heard what a Republican was. Their first presidential candidate got 2nd place in 1856. How is that not a mainstream party? Do you ever face the truth or back down, or are you so proud and stupid that you don't see truth even if it punches you in the face?

Harry Guerrilla said:
No they pretty much control the whole thing.
They write the laws for ballot access and they dump their primary costs on the taxpayer.

No other party can do that.

If you think the 2 major parties are good, I've got news for you.
Take a look at the national debt for the past 30-40 years.
Under both parties, it has grown crazily high added with the restriction on personal rights.
Click to expand...

Could you provide me some laws that have been passed restricting ballot access to non-Republican-or-Democrats?

Can you provide some sources on instances where candidates have used taxes for their private primaries?

If you think that the 2 major parties are bad, tell me why we are so much better off now then we were 30-40 years ago? Is our debt a problem? Absolutely. Will the Republicans do something about it when they take back the House and Senate this year? Without a doubt.
 
Rightarrow said:
Six years before Lincoln was elected, these guys were barely in the backwoods. Nobody had even heard what a Republican was. Their first presidential candidate got 2nd place in 1856. How is that not a mainstream party? Do you ever face the truth or back down, or are you so proud and stupid that you don't see truth even if it punches you in the face?
Click to expand...

They were by definition a third party, there were not a major party.
It doesn't matter how long ago or how recent they were formed.

No personal attacks are necessary.

Rightarrow said:
Could you provide me some laws that have been passed restricting ballot access to non-Republican-or-Democrats?
Click to expand...

McCain-Feingold was a big one.
All the additional red tape added to describe were individual funds come from for each candidate required a lawyer to dig through.
That is something many third party candidates can't/couldn't afford to deal with.

Not to mention other areas where access is closed off, like the presidential debates.

Rightarrow said:
Can you provide some sources on instances where candidates have used taxes for their private primaries?
Click to expand...

When you vote in the primaries, you are using tax payer funded election voting stations, staffed by tax payer funded officials.

Rightarrow said:
If you think that the 2 major parties are bad, tell me why we are so much better off now then we were 30-40 years ago? Is our debt a problem? Absolutely. Will the Republicans do something about it when they take back the House and Senate this year? Without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Better off is a matter of perspective.

My future has been diminished because of the want for posterity of my elder generations.
They have paid for their laziness with a future debt obligation that I am required to pay.
Many government officials have already indicated that we will have to enter a time of austerity in order to big our finances in order.

That means less economic growth combined with higher tax rates.
Which is especially disturbing because my generation gets it's start during a deep recession that depresses our lifetime earnings.

I hope Republicans do a lot more than increase taxes, I hope they cut Medicare and SS but I'm not holding my breath.
 
This is just an opening to allow scamming of the elections. In states where there are open primaries opposing parties are constantly pushing the less disagreeable candidate with any of their excess voting power. The Repubs are flooded with RhINO's for just this reason. What we need are parties who require that candidates speak the truth about their positions, act in accordance with what they have represented and the party should campaign against them if they stray.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

What it would do instead though is make it so that the minority party in the state would probably never get on the final ballot.

In other words, in a heavy blue state, you'd end up with two democrats on the final ballot every time, and in a red state, with republicans.
 
Groucho said:
What it would do instead though is make it so that the minority party in the state would probably never get on the final ballot.

In other words, in a heavy blue state, you'd end up with two democrats on the final ballot every time, and in a red state, with republicans.
Click to expand...

So? Is that the end of the world?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
So? Is that the end of the world?
Click to expand...
The minority would have no voice except to vote for the candidate they liked best of the two opposing party members.

A "Best of two evils" situation.

At least in the current system the opposing side gets some face time/exposure...

Now, a better candidate selection system might be a good idea…
 
Bassman said:
But hey, that's not stopping you from enjoying the current incompetents parking their fat leftist asses in DC now, is it??
Click to expand...


Sometimes I am convinced that you are here to be a satirize conservatives, because no matter how many times you are proven wrong, no matter how many times I have written things the exact opposite of what you claim, no matter how many times you have been corrected, you just keep repeating the same old tired lines.

Seriously, do you ever think or do you just cut and paste now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom