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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 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?

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?

Yeah! Who would dare stoop to stoop to such vile tactics!?!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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?

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.

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!