Why do some states have open primaries?

[jtgain]

It makes no sense at all to me. Today in Michigan, with the DEMS pretty much a non-issue, the GOP can have its primary affected by voters who don't affiliate with them at all. If I'm an Obama supporter, for example, I can go vote for Fred Thompson just for a lark, because it doesn't hurt my candidate any, but it compromises the party process.

It would be like if the Dopers had a convention to see what we all agreed upon, but "oh, by the way you don't have to subscribe to the board or even know what it is" to participate. With that, how could we then say "This is what Dopers want!"?

[RTFirefly]

A lot of states haven't concluded that it's any of their business what party you're affiliated with. So when you register to vote, they don't ask you that.

So when it's primary time, they can't tell you which primary you have to participate in, because they haven't made it their business to know.

Therefore 'open' is the only kind of primary they can have.

[Frostillicus]

I still think it is ridiculous. Registered Democrats should get to nominate the Democratic candidate, and the same holds true for the Republicans. Registered independants should have to wait until the general election to choose.

[Fear Itself]

I agree. The purpose of a primary is to allow political parties to choose the candidate who will represent the party and its principles. I don't see why people who have not declared their membership in the party have any right to cast a vote that will determine my party's candidate. Let independents have their own primary if they want, and nominate their own candidate. But they have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party with which they have no affiliation.

[Menocchio]

Since party membership is open to all and can be changed for any reason or none at all, I don't really see the point in a closed election myself.

[Saint Cad]

I agree. The purpose of a primary is to allow political parties to choose the candidate who will represent the party and its principles.

Then let the PARTIES run (and pay for) the primary. As long as the state foots the bill, they can make up whatever rules they want.

[dalej42]

I prefer open primaries. Many states are still one party states where the actual battle occurs in the primary.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Then let the PARTIES run (and pay for) the primary. As long as the state foots the bill, they can make up whatever rules they want.

Exactly. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[RTFirefly]

I agree. The purpose of a primary is to allow political parties to choose the candidate who will represent the party and its principles. I don't see why people who have not declared their membership in the party have any right to cast a vote that will determine my party's candidate. The implication of this is that, in states that don't ask you for your party affiliation, nobody should have the right to participate in a primary.

That seems kinda stupid.

This logic would apply to caucuses too, unless a party keeps its own membership rolls. Though in that instance, a person simply could join both parties, just to keep his options open.

[Fear Itself]

The implication of this is that, in states that don't ask you for your party affiliation, nobody should have the right to participate in a primary.

That seems kinda stupid.Why is that stupid? Not asking for an affiliation is not the same as preventing affiliation. If you don't choose to affiliate with my party, why should you choose our candidate?

[amarinth]

Why is that stupid? Not asking for an affiliation is not the same as preventing affiliation. If you don't choose to affiliate with my party, why should you choose our candidate?Why am I paying for your private election, again?

[Fear Itself]

Why am I paying for your private election, again?For the same reason I pay to educate your children, when I have none. The legislature decided it was good public policy to insure free and fair elections.

[amarinth]

For the same reason I pay to educate your children, when I have none. The legislature decided it was good public policy to insure free and fair elections.I would disagree that they're free or fair elections if they're not open.

[Fear Itself]

I would disagree that they're free or fair elections if they're not open.I support your right to disagree with me.

[Freddy the Pig]

The legislature decided it was good public policy to insure free and fair elections.Except that a primary isn't an election; it's a nomination.

[Troy McClure SF]

I would disagree that they're free or fair elections if they're not open.
What does a primary have to do with a free election?

[RTFirefly]

Why is that stupid? Not asking for an affiliation is not the same as preventing affiliation. In the case of a state-run primary, it certainly is. If the state voter registration form doesn't have a place to indicate one's party affiliation, I can still write it on the form, but then what? The state's computers won't have a field to record my party affiliation. As far as they're concerned, nobody in the state will have a party affiliation. Period. If you don't choose to affiliate with my party, why should you choose our candidate?Even if we posit that we're talking about either a caucus or a party-run primary, how do I make that choice to affiliate?

I call myself a Democrat, and I contribute money to the campaigns of Dem politicians I support, but I don't have a card that says I'm an official member of the Democratic Party.

Back when I was still a Republican and living in Virginia, I participated in the local GOP caucuses one year; these caucuses were the first step towards choosing Virginia's national GOP convention delegates. But they didn't have my name on a list either, saying I was one of theirs. I think I may have had to contribute $10 to the local party to participate in the caucus, but I can't remember for sure.

ETA: If the parties themselves don't provide a way of affiliating in advance of the caucus or primary, then a caucus or a party-run primary is in fact open.

[RTFirefly]

BTW, I wholeheartedly believe that a party has the right to control its own nominating process. That's not the part I think is stupid. But aside from a state's willingness to ask for and record one's party affiliation, which isn't universal, there's no mechanism in place for defining party affiliation ahead of time.

So if you're saying that one must be affiliated with a party ahead of the primary or caucus to participate in it, then you're saying that no one at all would be eligible to select delegates in states that don't record voters' party affiliations.

That consequence, that nobody would be in a position to choose delegates for either party, is what I would regard as stupid. A problematic but semi-representative means of choosing delegates is better than no way to do so at all.

[Fear Itself]

So if you're saying that one must be affiliated with a party ahead of the primary or caucus to participate in it, then you're saying that no one at all would be eligible to select delegates in states that don't record voters' party affiliations..Well, there's your problem, since that is not what I am saying. I fundamentally disagree with open elections, and to the extent that states facilitate them by not requiring party affiliation, I disagree with that as well. So I would clarify my point by saying that states should require party affiliation (or a declaration of Indepenpendent or Unaffiliated), and limit voting in the primary based on that affiliation. I though it was obvious that I believed in both. I was mistaken.

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, there's your problem, since that is not what I am saying. I fundamentally disagree with open elections, and to the extent that states facilitate them by not requiring party affiliation, I disagree with that as well. So I would clarify my point by saying that states should require party affiliation (or a declaration of Indepenpendent or Unaffiliated), and limit voting in the primary based on that affiliation. I though it was obvious that I believed in both. I was mistaken.
Then you and your party can pick up the tab for the cost of running your private nomination party. As others have said. And your assertion that the state pays for it as a decision on it's part to hold a better election is equally valid as a reason for you to accept whomever wants to vote in your primary if that's what the state thinks is a "good public policy to insure free and fair elections." ;)

There is one point to consider as a difference between an "open" primary and the theoretically "open" nature of an otherwise closed primary. In an "open" primary, especially in states where party affiliation isn't required for registration, you are never officially attached to a party in an official governmental record. This makes a BIG difference, trust me. If you are in a state that is traditionally dominated by a particular party, it's quite intimidating to have to check the box for the opposite party when registering to vote. So, yeah, you can always re-register and switch affiliation any time you want, but by doing so you become "attached" to that party officially, something you may not want to do.

[RTFirefly]

Well, there's your problem, since that is not what I am saying. I fundamentally disagree with open elections, and to the extent that states facilitate them by not requiring party affiliation, I disagree with that as well. I'm sorry you disagree with that. I personally think it's none of the state's fucking business what nongovernmental organizations I have an affinity for or with.
So I would clarify my point by saying that states should require party affiliation (or a declaration of Indepenpendent or Unaffiliated), and limit voting in the primary based on that affiliation. I though it was obvious that I believed in both. I was mistaken.I'm glad you've clarified that, even though we disagree. (Not that it matters now, but I really don't see a hint of it in your previous posts in this thread.)

[Fear Itself]

In an "open" primary, especially in states where party affiliation isn't required for registration, you are never officially attached to a party in an official governmental record. This may be true in your state, but not in mine. The voter registration form in New Hampshire does indeed have a place to declare your party affiliation (or Independent), and we do have an open primary.

[elfkin477]

This may be true in your state, but not in mine. The voter registration form in New Hampshire does indeed have a place to declare your party affiliation (or Independent), and we do have an open primary. Indeed. When I go to vote in a primary they hand me a republican ballot, but I'm fairly sure I could ask for a democrat one instead were I inclined to vote that way instead.

[Fear Itself]

Indeed. When I go to vote in a primary they hand me a republican ballot, but I'm fairly sure I could ask for a democrat one instead were I inclined to vote that way instead.That was my experience also. They just asked which ballot I wanted.

[DSYoungEsq]

This may be true in your state, but not in mine. The voter registration form in New Hampshire does indeed have a place to declare your party affiliation (or Independent), and we do have an open primary.
Well, I should have been more explicit about the fact that, in an open primary state where you do have to establish an affiliation at registration, the thing they won't have is a record of which ballot you took, usually. I intended the full force of my statement to apply to states without declaration of affiliation.

I notice you didn't address my other comments. ;)

[Fear Itself]

Well, I should have been more explicit about the fact that, in an open primary state where you do have to establish an affiliation at registration, the thing they won't have is a record of which ballot you took, usually. I never contested that.

[jtgain]

Then you and your party can pick up the tab for the cost of running your private nomination party. As others have said. And your assertion that the state pays for it as a decision on it's part to hold a better election is equally valid as a reason for you to accept whomever wants to vote in your primary if that's what the state thinks is a "good public policy to insure free and fair elections." ;)


Florida has closed primaries and I have never heard this argument. Since all parties equally have closed primaries and the individual voters can participate in their OWN primary, I don't see how taxpayers are getting screwed.

It's a novel argument indeed that since the government has decided to provide a service that I choose not to participate in, that I somehow shouldn't have to pay. Since I never go to the park, should the city/county reimburse me a portion of my taxes?

[Saint Cad]

It's a novel argument indeed that since the government has decided to provide a service that I choose not to participate in, that I somehow shouldn't have to pay. Since I never go to the park, should the city/county reimburse me a portion of my taxes?

Does your state pay to run elections for officers of corporations? or private clubs? The point is that DNC and RNC are private organizations that want to control all of the aspects what is basically their own private election yet make the taxpayers pay for it.

[jtgain]

Does your state pay to run elections for officers of corporations? or private clubs? The point is that DNC and RNC are private organizations that want to control all of the aspects what is basically their own private election yet make the taxpayers pay for it.


That is very much different. Surely you agree that the state should control the general election in November?

So, instead of having 100 candidates on the ballot, it seems reasonable that the major parties should be allowed to narrow the candidates to make the election manageable. And as such they should allow participation only to members of those parties.

That's a far cry from having the state pay for the elections to my Home Owners Association. That is the FINAL election and only affects the people who live there, and one would torture the definition of "reasonable" to make it a state concern..

[DMC]

I agree. The purpose of a primary is to allow political parties to choose the candidate who will represent the party and its principles. I don't see why people who have not declared their membership in the party have any right to cast a vote that will determine my party's candidate. Let independents have their own primary if they want, and nominate their own candidate. But they have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party with which they have no affiliation.I assume that you're aware that even in places with a closed primary there is no way to stop a hardcore right-winger from registering as a Democrat, simply for the purpose of trying to put the most conservative opponent on the ticket. So, even with closed primaries, you really aren't limiting the decision to those who would choose to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party.

Hell, there are even members of this board who get the :rolleyes: treatment every time they claim to be registered members of this or that party.

[Fear Itself]

I assume that you're aware that even in places with a closed primary there is no way to stop a hardcore right-winger from registering as a Democrat, simply for the purpose of trying to put the most conservative opponent on the ticket. So, even with closed primaries, you really aren't limiting the decision to those who would choose to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party.That suits me fine. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I think it should be. You can vote in my primary, but you have to declare. It won't keep all the riff-raff out, but half a loaf is better than none.

[jtgain]

I assume that you're aware that even in places with a closed primary there is no way to stop a hardcore right-winger from registering as a Democrat, simply for the purpose of trying to put the most conservative opponent on the ticket. So, even with closed primaries, you really aren't limiting the decision to those who would choose to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party.

Hell, there are even members of this board who get the :rolleyes: treatment every time they claim to be registered members of this or that party.

Yes, but it greatly cuts down on those scofflaws. In a closed primary system, I would have to make a trip to the courthouse, in most cases more than 30 days prior to the election and change my voter registration. Not many people will do that; in fact near zero.

In an open primary, I can gauge the circumstances up to the very second that I walk into the voting precient and decide on the spot that I want a DEM, no GOP, no DEM, WAIT! GOP........sorry, DEM. Ok, GOP, and that is final. Wait, DEM ballot! Final answer, Regis.

But, we keep moving away from what the primaries are supposed to do. In a rare view of frugality with government spending, Dopers are worrying about the state budget. Would anyone disagree that the basic idea of a primary is for Republicans to decide on their candidates, while the Dems decide on THEIR candidate (and yes all of the other parties)

So what is the point of saying, "We Democrats choose Obama!" when in fact only 30% of the voters were DEMS, while 40% were independents, and 30% were Republicans.

Just like my analogy of having a meeting of Dopers and seeing what we agree upon, but we let everyone else in the world have a say in what we want. What's the point?

[DMC]

Yes, but it greatly cuts down on those scofflaws. In a closed primary system, I would have to make a trip to the courthouse, in most cases more than 30 days prior to the election and change my voter registration. Not many people will do that; in fact near zero.I'm not talking about changing their affiliation, I'm talking about people who permanently affiliate themselves with a party that they're not likely to ever vote for for federal office. They likely figure that they'll be happy with whatever person who shares their ideology gets the nom, so they want to influence the competition of said person. These people exist, and while I'm aware of many of them individually, as a whole, their numbers are unknown.

They're not exactly doing lie-detection testing upon registration.

Edit: typo

[amarinth]

I support your right to disagree with me.
Sorry, I have more time to respond now -
just to provide background, my entire voting history is in a state that was only very recently dragged kicking and screaming into having an open primary. A closed primary is so far out of my experience, that I might be overlooking the good parts. And I admit, it might just be a purely emotional reaction.

I don't think it's any of the state's business which party I vote for.

From what I've seen, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) when you have to register by party, it becomes part of the public record, and anyone can find out - I don't think it's anyone else's business which party I vote for.

In primary "elections" where there is only one candidate, in a closed primary, the state (and anyone else) knows who I did vote for. That feels like it throws away the entire idea of a secret ballot. To me, that's not in the spirit of a free or fair election.

I think having to request one particular ballot or another might surpress voters who live in an area where they aren't in the majority.

I really don't like the idea of paying for a private club's elections - it bothers me that the parties are trying to have it both ways "we're too private to let anyone participate, but too public to pay for it." If you're private, be private. If you're public, be public.

Since a sizeable percentage of people are moderate and/or independent, I think that closing a primary eliminates their voice in elections. Especially at levels of voting where the election really is decided at the primary level.

I think that closing primaries give the two major parties way too much power in shaping the final outcomes in elections. And I have no idea how responsive or representative or accountable "the party" may or may not be to its members, much less the entirety of the electorate. I don't trust them.

Even though it isn't an election, the non-presidential primaries are often are mixed in with significant non-partisan primaries, ballot measures, other real honest-to-goodness elections, which makes them look like real elections and gives them the feel and gravity of an actual election. I find it disingenuous to hear "no, no, this part - just a nominating process. It's different than everything else you're voting for at the same time, using the same means."

And finally, closed primaries make me shudder.

[RTFirefly]

That is very much different. Surely you agree that the state should control the general election in November?

So, instead of having 100 candidates on the ballot, it seems reasonable that the major parties should be allowed to narrow the candidates to make the election manageable. And as such they should allow participation only to members of those parties. States generally have some other process for keeping the number of names on the ballot down to a semi-reasonable number, such as requiring a certain number of signatures on petitions in order to qualify for the ballot if you, or your party, hasn't gotten a certain percentage of the vote in recent elections.

The purpose of parties isn't to cut down on the number of general election candidates on the ballot, but to confer a greater degree of legitimacy on some of the candidates on that ballot.

[Captain Amazing]

The purpose of parties isn't to cut down on the number of general election candidates on the ballot, but to confer a greater degree of legitimacy on some of the candidates on that ballot.

It confers greater legitimacy on the candidates because it's an endorsement. It's the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the Green Party, or the Right to Life Party or whoever saying, "Our organization thinks that this person is the best candidate for office." If the nominating process for a party is open to anybody, whether or not they're a member of the party, though, that endorsement becomes meaningless.

[Freddy the Pig]

Then let the PARTIES run (and pay for) the primary.If only states gave the parties that option! But (with rare exceptions) they don't, and never have. In Illinois, and in most other states, if you are a "major party" (defined by vote received in previous election) and want to get your nominee onto the ballot for governor or senator or state treasurer in the fall, you have no choice but to choose your candidate in a state-run primary under state-dictated rules. The only alternative is to restart your party from the ground up and petition to get on the ballot under a new name each election cycle, which would deter the most determined partisan that ever lived.
As long as the state foots the bill, they can make up whatever rules they want.Actually, they can't, because the Supreme Court has determined that some rules violate the parties' constitutional right of free association (a concomitant of freedom of speech). In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, SCOTUS barred Connecticut from mandating a closed primary against the wishes of its state Republican Party. In California Democratic Party v. Jones, SCOTUS barred California from mandating a blanket primary (an extreme form of open primary) against the wishes of its state Democratic Party. In Miller v. Brown, an appellate court ruled that Virginia's attempt to mandate a more generic open primary, against the wishes of its state Republican Party, was unconstitutional.

My hope is that states will get out of the primary business as they find that they are increasingly constrained in setting the rules. State-run primaries are an abomination, the bastard child of Progressive do-gooders and Southern racists (who wanted a way to confine elections within the Democratic Party) from the turn of the Twentieth Century. They should be abolished.

The state's only interest in partisan nominating processes should be verification of gets onto the general election ballot. This can be done less intrusively, as it is in every other country in the world.

[RTFirefly]

If only states gave the parties that option! How can they deny it to them?

Actually, they can't, because the Supreme Court has determined that some rules violate the parties' constitutional right of free association (a concomitant of freedom of speech). In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, SCOTUS barred Connecticut from mandating a closed primary against the wishes of its state Republican Party. In California Democratic Party v. Jones, SCOTUS barred California from mandating a blanket primary (an extreme form of open primary) against the wishes of its state Democratic Party. In Miller v. Brown, an appellate court ruled that Virginia's attempt to mandate a more generic open primary, against the wishes of its state Republican Party, was unconstitutional. Maybe that made sense to the SCOTUS, but it makes none to me. The parties have a Constitutional right of free association that is, IMHO, adequately expressed by their choice of whether to participate in a state-run primary.

[Freddy the Pig]

How can they deny it to them?To my knowledge, no state party has ever raised the broader challenge that it shouldn't be required to nominate by primary at all.

We've had one instance of the reverse, in American Party of Texas v. White (http://supreme.justia.com/us/415/767/), in which a Texas "minor party" complained that they wanted the state to conduct a primary on their behalf but state law forbade it. In that case, the Court found, "The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid the requirement that small parties proceed by convention, rather than primary election. The convention process has not been shown here to be invidiously more burdensome than the primary election, followed by a runoff election where necessary." In other words, the state doesn't have to hold a primary for you if it doesn't want to. But what about the reverse case, if a party doesn't want the state to hold a primary? Again, I know of no such case.

[RTFirefly]

To my knowledge, no state party has ever raised the broader challenge that it shouldn't be required to nominate by primary at all. Of course it hasn't, because the state has never had the power to require that.

If a party wants to choose its delegates by convention or caucus, it's free to do so: there's no way a state can dictate to a party the means of its delegate selection.

If the state absolutely insists on distributing a primary ballot for that party anyway, it would be called a 'beauty contest' primary, meaning that the primary's for show, rather than for real. That kind of primary used to be not uncommon back in the 1960s and early 1970s.

But that wasn't the issue I was raising, which was that there's no way to deny a party the option of running, and paying for, their own primary. I mean, how would you stop them - forbid them from renting locations where people could vote? Turn firehoses on their poll workers? I'm missing something here.

[Freddy the Pig]

But that wasn't the issue I was raising, which was that there's no way to deny a party the option of running, and paying for, their own primary. I mean, how would you stop them - forbid them from renting locations where people could vote? Turn firehoses on their poll workers? I'm missing something here.Yes, because you're fixating on presidential primaries, rather than primaries for state offices and Congress. States most certainly exercise the power to require parties to nominate by primary for state offices and Congress, by denying them ballot access if they do otherwise.

[Telemark]

States most certainly exercise the power to require parties to nominate by primary for state offices and Congress, by denying them ballot access if they do otherwise.
What states do that?

[Freddy the Pig]

What states do that?Almost all of them. To quote from the election statutes of Illinois (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=170&ChapAct=10%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=3&ChapterName=ELECTIONS&SectionID=36401&SeqStart=30200000&SeqEnd=38500000&ActName=Election+Code%2E) (my emphasis):
ARTICLE 7. THE MAKING OF NOMINATIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Article, the nomination of all candidates for all elective State, congressional, judicial, and county officers, State's Attorneys (whether elected from a single county or from more than one county), city, village, and incorporated town and municipal officers, trustees of sanitary districts, township officers in townships of over 5,000 population coextensive with or included wholly within cities or villages not under the commission form of government, precinct, township, ward, and State central committeemen, and delegates and alternate delegates to national nominating conventions by all political parties, as defined in Section 7‑2 of this Article 7, shall be made in the manner provided in this Article 7 and not otherwise. . . .

Sec. 7‑5. (a) Primary elections shall be held on the dates prescribed in Article 2A.
. . .
Sec. 7‑59. (a) The person receiving the highest number of votes at a primary as a candidate of a party for the nomination for an office shall be the candidate of that party for such office, and his name as such candidate shall be placed on the official ballot at the election then next ensuing; provided, that where there are two or more persons to be nominated for the same office or board, the requisite number of persons receiving the highest number of votes shall be nominated and their names shall be placed on the official ballot at the following election.

[RTFirefly]

Yes, because you're fixating on presidential primaries, rather than primaries for state offices and Congress. That was the kind of primary the OP discussed.

You call it 'fixating,' I call it 'staying on topic.'

Not that the topic of a thread can't wander. But just because you're wandering, doesn't mean you can expect others to wander in the same direction.

[RTFirefly]

I notice that the Illinois statute you cite, Freddy, applies to "delegates and alternate delegates to national nominating conventions by all political parties."

It may be the law of the state of Illinois, but I'd like to see how they'd enforce it, if one of the major parties opted to choose its delegates by caucus or at a state convention.

[Captain Amazing]

It may be the law of the state of Illinois, but I'd like to see how they'd enforce it, if one of the major parties opted to choose its delegates by caucus or at a state convention.

Fail to allow the person selected that way on the ballot?

[Freddy the Pig]

It may be the law of the state of Illinois, but I'd like to see how they'd enforce it, if one of the major parties opted to choose its delegates by caucus or at a state convention.I agree; in the specific case of delegates to a presidential nominating convention, such a law is unenforceable, because the national party convention is the final authority on seating delegates. But the law is easily enforceable in all other cases--the state, after all, is the final authority in placing names on the November ballot.

[RTFirefly]

Fail to allow the person selected that way on the ballot?They could, in theory. In practice, the publicity would be so fast, so strong, and so negative that they'd change their tune in a heartbeat.

[jtgain]

And tonight's SC primary adds to my point. Republicans in a Republican primary preferred Huckabee, but independents who could give two shits about the Republican party puts McCain over the top.

Why is this allowed?

[DMC]

And tonight's SC primary adds to my point. Republicans in a Republican primary preferred Huckabee...Can I get a link for this please?

[BwanaBob]

And tonight's SC primary adds to my point. Republicans in a Republican primary preferred Huckabee, but independents who could give two shits about the Republican party puts McCain over the top.

Why is this allowed?


Because Moderates (and I believe most people deep down really are this) would like to be able to choose from "moderate" candidates rather than from "standard bearers". We don't want to have to "hold our nose" and pick from the lesser of two extremes.

No one party has a monopoly on truth and sensibility.

As a New Yorker (and Independent) I feel disenfranchised because I have to sit back and choose from the two that hard-core party members choose. This is bullshit.

[Fear Itself]

Because Moderates (and I believe most people deep down really are this) would like to be able to choose from "moderate" candidates rather than from "standard bearers". If most people were moderates who felt disenfranchised by the two major parties, there would be a third party kicking butt on the Dems and Pubs. There is not.

[jtgain]

Because Moderates (and I believe most people deep down really are this) would like to be able to choose from "moderate" candidates rather than from "standard bearers". We don't want to have to "hold our nose" and pick from the lesser of two extremes.

No one party has a monopoly on truth and sensibility.

As a New Yorker (and Independent) I feel disenfranchised because I have to sit back and choose from the two that hard-core party members choose. This is bullshit.

You have the Libertarians, the Greens, the Reform, the Consitutional Law, the Prohibition, the Socialist, the Communist, the Taxpayers Parties, etc. How are you disenfranchised? They have no chance of winning, you say? That doesn't disenfranchise you; that just means that your guy lost. (Pretty badly)

No, but you want to choose which Republican or which Democrat appears on the November ballot. If you want that, you need to join up.

[DSYoungEsq]

You have the Libertarians, the Greens, the Reform, the Consitutional Law, the Prohibition, the Socialist, the Communist, the Taxpayers Parties, etc. How are you disenfranchised? They have no chance of winning, you say? That doesn't disenfranchise you; that just means that your guy lost. (Pretty badly)

No, but you want to choose which Republican or which Democrat appears on the November ballot. If you want that, you need to join up.
NO, you don't, and you shouldn't, and thankfully, states with open primaries make it that way. :)

[Honesty]

I still think it is ridiculous. Registered Democrats should get to nominate the Democratic candidate, and the same holds true for the Republicans. Registered independants should have to wait until the general election to choose.


I think Michigan is just unique. When I registered to vote here, I was not asked (and have not been asked) whether I am democrat or republican.

- Honesty.

[BwanaBob]

Sorry I couldn't post back last night.

Look, being realistic, there are good points to both major parties and some crappy ones too (IMHO). The correct blend of attributes for me doesn't exist in any one party's platform (3rd parties included).

I would prefer that I had a choice of people closest to my perfect blend. I am denied this because I won't buy into one party's platform hook-line-and-sinker.

If primaries were truly open in all states I wouldn't be surprised if actual party enrollments dropped somewhat; reason being that some probably felt compelled to join one of the two just so they could have say in one of the candidates being nominated.

[Fear Itself]

If primaries were truly open in all states I wouldn't be surprised if actual party enrollments dropped somewhat; reason being that some probably felt compelled to join one of the two just so they could have say in one of the candidates being nominated.So why not dispense with primaries altogether, and just have a big ol' general election with 15 or 20 candidates? That is whole purpose of primaries; to weed through all the pretenders and decide which will represent the party. If everybody gets to vote on all the candidates, why bother?

[BwanaBob]

So why not dispense with primaries altogether, and just have a big ol' general election with 15 or 20 candidates? That is whole purpose of primaries; to weed through all the pretenders and decide which will represent the party. If everybody gets to vote on all the candidates, why bother?


I agree with you - I'd rather it be this way, I'd have a much better chance of being able to pick from the less extreme candidates of either major party.