Open primaries - How 'bout you vote for who you want to be president, dillweed?

[Slacker]

So apparently if you're a Republican in Texas, today you may be heading to the polls to do one of three things:

1. Vote for Clinton because you think she'll fare worse at the general election in November.
2. Vote for Obama because you think he'll fare worse at the general (I've heard it both ways).
3. Vote for someone you actually want to be president (extremely rare).

Evidently the Repulican candidate is such a turd that instead of voting for him, Repubs are trying to line up the weakest competition available for him to run against. Now that's what our soldiers fought and died for!

I'm (perhaps obviously) an independent Obama voter, and I was thinking I'd have a hard decision ahead of me if it comes down to Clinton and McCain in November. However, if Clinton gets the nominaton, I'm going to have to vote for her. Nothing would please me more than to talk to these d-bags voting for her today and see how they feel about making her presidency happen.

[OtakuLoki]

This is the great fear, or flaw, to open primaries. It happens on both sides of the aisle, and as someone who'd like open primaries it annoys me.

It's certainly the rationale to keep primaries closed here in NYS.

[Loach]

That is the same complaint that many conservatives had about some of the earlier primaries. And the polls showed they were right. McCain won on the strength of many voters who were not previously registered as republicans, democrats and independents. Neither party has any room to complain. It is the party that sets up how the primary is run.

[WhyNot]

[Channeling Arthur Dent]Has there always been this much...strategery...in politics, and I've just been to wrapped up in myself to notice?

[PunditLisa]

I'm a registered Republican and voted today for Barack Obama because I hope he'll be our next President.

I actually like John McCain but think the Senate is the right place for him. I absolutely see his position on pulling out of Iraq, but I just don't believe in my heart that the Middle East will ever settle down until we get the hell out of there.

Hillary had my support up until a few weeks ago when she started the negative campaigning. Personally, I'm weary of divisive politics and voted for the person whom I think has exhibited the most grace and diplomacy under pressure.

As for the OP, voting for the weakest person of the opposition in the primary is hardly a new strategy. What's the alternative? Having the party leaders pick the candidate again?

[WhyNot]

As for the OP, voting for the weakest person of the opposition in the primary is hardly a new strategy. What's the alternative? Having the party leaders pick the candidate again?
No, how 'bout having the party members pick the candidate they want to represent them? Or how about doing away with the parties entirely?

[OtakuLoki]

How about letting the parties pay the costs of their closed primaries? If they're just for the party members, why should the taxpayers, in general, have to foot the bill?

[NightRabbit]

IME, the only reason to register for a certain party is to be able to vote in the primaries. With these "open primaries", what's the incentive to have any party affiliation whatsoever?

[ArizonaTeach]

Yeah! Who would dare stoop to stoop to such vile tactics!?! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206)

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

As a liberal voter and registered Republican (for the sole purpose of voting in the Republican primary), you can go ahead and pit me, too.

It's just the way the game is played.

[PunditLisa]

No, how 'bout having the party members pick the candidate they want to represent them? Or how about doing away with the parties entirely?

How do you define a "party member"? It seems to have the same loophole as the open primary, in that some people would "join" the opposing party for the sole purpose of stacking the deck in favor of the guy they really want to win.

The "party system" is not a Constitutional creation. It's just that the way that politics have evolved in the U.S. due to the electoral college number game. So how would we "do away" with the parties? Forcing them to disband would be... unconstitutional.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

It stinks when we do it, and it stinks when they do it.

[SenorBeef]

IME, the only reason to register for a certain party is to be able to vote in the primaries. With these "open primaries", what's the incentive to have any party affiliation whatsoever?

Are you looking at the lack of incentive for party affiliation as a problem?

[Billdo]

It stinks when we do it, and it stinks when they do it.

Come on. Where's your head's I win, tails you lose attitude, Ninja?

[Borborygmi]

I hate it when somebody takes their right to vote and uses it however they want.

[Slacker]

I hate it when somebody takes their right to vote and uses it however they want.
So you wouldn't have a problem if Democrats were somehow the vast majority of voters, and hatched a plan every four years to split up their votes so they could nominate both parties' candidates? "Ok this year we'd like to see Bill Richardson vs Carrot Top."

Call me crazy - I think the nominee should be chosen by those who will actually vote for him/her. If that leaves me out, so be it (I'm an independent, I refuse to register as a Democrat until they get their heads out of their asses).

[Jurph]

I hate it when somebody takes their right to vote and uses it however they want.

I hate it when a group of fairly smart philosophers and lawyers believe that they're smart enough to decide on a voting method without consulting a mathematician. Approval voting would make this entire thread moot.

[OtakuLoki]

I hate it when a group of fairly smart philosophers and lawyers believe that they're smart enough to decide on a voting method without consulting a mathematician. Approval voting would make this entire thread moot.


Could you offer a link to that methodology?

[Borborygmi]

So you wouldn't have a problem if Democrats were somehow the vast majority of voters, and hatched a plan every four years to split up their votes so they could nominate both parties' candidates? "Ok this year we'd like to see Bill Richardson vs Carrot Top."I would have no problem living in a world with such a highly organized Democratic party machine. But, it seems unlikely.

But, flip comments aside... basically, no: I wouldn't have a problem with it. Because, that is how the system is set up, and the candidates and parties know this, and they run their campaigns accordingly. There was much hand-wringing over GWB winning in 2000 when he lost the popular vote. (Other issues, too, of course... I'm not addressing those.) As a Gore guy, I was embarrassed by that: that's how the system works, and both candidates ran campaigns to win the electoral vote.

[FriarTed]

My state's primary is in May. Last night settled my party's nomination of McCain. This May, I'm declaring Democrat & voting for Hillary. I'd thought about doing that even if the GOP race was still going. This will pain me much less.

Go Hill! Go John!

[muttrox]

Could you offer a link to that methodology?

Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) pretty good. I instituted this in our book group and stopped a lot of fighting about book selection with it.

Of course, I believe Kenneth Arrow proved even this has it's flaws, as does every voting system. So don't get to carried away by "mathematicians know best".

[Maeglin]

Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) pretty good. I instituted this in our book group and stopped a lot of fighting about book selection with it.

Of course, I believe Kenneth Arrow proved even this has it's flaws, as does every voting system. So don't get to carried away by "mathematicians know best".

He did. But as it turns out, plurality (first past the post) with certain modifications has outstanding formal properties that come very close to satisfying Arrow's theorem without being dictatorial.

Approval voting is also fundamentally flawed, of course. The question is, what flaws are we as a society willing to tolerate? Democracies with run-off elections are willing to tolerate a little public irrationality in exchange for some fairness and equity. In the US, we are not. Who can really say which works out better in the end?

[Troy McClure SF]

How about letting the parties pay the costs of their closed primaries? If they're just for the party members, why should the taxpayers, in general, have to foot the bill?
Amen. What a bunch of bullshit.

As for the OP, hell I do that every year on my All-Star ballot. :) Damn whippersnapper American League with their damnable designated hitter.

[gazpacho]

How about letting the parties pay the costs of their closed primaries? If they're just for the party members, why should the taxpayers, in general, have to foot the bill?We used to have more or less that. Smoked filled back rooms with party big wigs choosing who they wanted to run. We have the primary system now as a reform from that.

[OtakuLoki]

gazpacho, I'm already of the opinion that the primary process has done little enough to make the election process more open. Now, instead of smoke-filled rooms being the true testing ground for votes for delegates, we have smoke-filled rooms being the major testing ground for election funding.

[John Mace]

Evidently the Repulican candidate is such a turd that instead of voting for him, Repubs are trying to line up the weakest competition available for him to run against.
Evidently not. Evidently, the Republicans realize that McCain has it sewn up, so no need to vote for him. Do some homework before you spout out nonsense like that in an OP. But I have to wonder how much this even happens, anyway. It's an open primary. So what? There are a bunch of those and both sides can play that game.

[Slacker]

Evidently not. Evidently, the Republicans realize that McCain has it sewn up, so no need to vote for him. Do some homework before you spout out nonsense like that in an OP. But I have to wonder how much this even happens, anyway. It's an open primary. So what? There are a bunch of those and both sides can play that game.
I did my homework, cowboy. I know Republicans like to respond to what they think is the point rather than the actual point though, so I won't hold it against you. I'm not complaining about a lack of voting for McCain. I'm complaining about the Republicans who voted for Hillary specifically because they thought she was a weaker candidate (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/mdavis/stories/030408dnmetmarkdavis.1f58f9ec.html) to go against McCain. Yeah the other side would probably do the same thing, but that doesn't make me like it any more.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

So you wouldn't have a problem if Democrats were somehow the vast majority of voters, and hatched a plan every four years to split up their votes so they could nominate both parties' candidates? "Ok this year we'd like to see Bill Richardson vs Carrot Top."That scenario is implausible. If one party really had the vast majority of voters, it would either split into two major factions, and you'd have essentially a multi-party system again, or it wouldn't care who the other candidate was.

Besides, who could ever live down being in the half that had to nominate Carrot Top?

[Loach]

That scenario is implausible. If one party really had the vast majority of voters, it would either split into two major factions, and you'd have essentially a multi-party system again, or it wouldn't care who the other candidate was.

Besides, who could ever live down being in the half that had to nominate Carrot Top?

I bet Carrot Top would come up with some amusing contraption to capture Bin Laden. Hmmmm. Maybe in 2012?

[John Mace]

I did my homework, cowboy. I know Republicans like to respond to what they think is the point rather than the actual point though, so I won't hold it against you. I'm not complaining about a lack of voting for McCain. I'm complaining about the Republicans who voted for Hillary specifically because they thought she was a weaker candidate (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/mdavis/stories/030408dnmetmarkdavis.1f58f9ec.html) to go against McCain. Yeah the other side would probably do the same thing, but that doesn't make me like it any more.
I'm not a Republican, and I know what you're complaining about. Others had already addressed the validity of that complaint, and I was pointing out that you had included something that was factually incorrect in your OP. If you don't like that, then blame yourself-- you shouldn't have put it in there in the first place. Evidently.

[Plynck]

I can't see the problem here. In 2000, Al Gore was the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, so a vote for him was superfluous. On the other hand, GWB looked like he was going to be pure evil in a well tailored suit, while McCain looked to be better - either he could be beat by Gore, or he would be tolerable as President. Of course, voting here in Massachusetts and with the Democratic party having no discernible strategy, voting for McCain was useless. It honestly didn't seem likely that GWB could be derailed. But I voted for McCain in the primary anyway.

Turnabout is fair play.

[Clothahump]

So apparently if you're a Republican in Texas, today you may be heading to the polls to do one of three things:

1. Vote for Clinton because you think she'll fare worse at the general election in November.
2. Vote for Obama because you think he'll fare worse at the general (I've heard it both ways).
3. Vote for someone you actually want to be president (extremely rare).

Evidently the Repulican candidate is such a turd that instead of voting for him, Repubs are trying to line up the weakest competition available for him to run against. Now that's what our soldiers fought and died for!

Nah, the Republicans in Texas voted for the Republican of their choice.

It's all the lameass Yankee transplants down here that are doing the crossover crap.

[Sublight]

Count me as another who's not sharing the OP's ire. I'm traditionally a Democrat voter, but if the Dem nomination were all sewn up I could easily see registering Republican to vote for the candidate I thought would either most hobble the party, or whom I found most tolerable.

That just seems like a basic strategy for getting the most return for one's investment.

[Measure for Measure]

As for the OP, voting for the weakest person of the opposition in the primary is hardly a new strategy. What's the alternative? Having the party leaders pick the candidate again? I for one would prefer the return of the smoke-filled room.

After all, that's how parties pick their candidates in most democracies. I like this because it builds in an automatic vocal base for the President and therefore advances governance.

We're not choosing a President during the primaries. We're choosing the candidate that we think should run for President. If I were a Republican, supporting the weakest Democrat possible might very well reflect my preferences.