I prefer closed.
That’s the pragmatic side that makes them bad ideas.
As an idealistic thing, they are great. The community comes together. They discuss the issues that matter to them. They discuss the ways the candidates will address those issues. They raise up through the party system new planks to consider in the platform. Democracy should be talking to your neighbors. And responsibility to a party should be more than showing up on primary day and again for elections - it should MATTER.
But you can’t do that with 2000 people in a high school over three hours (I live in Minnesota, I have been to a caucus). And pragmatically, they exclude those that need to work that night, are out of town, can’t find somewhere for their kids, are housebound or functionally so, or are just introverts, etc.
Back when the two parties were essentially the same, I might agree with you. But as a center left independent, I really doubt there are a lot of people who really don’t know if they are Democrats or Republicans. Yeah, I think everyone should carry guns, we should have prayer in school, I pay too much in taxes - and rich people pay way too much, government is too big, the ACA is unconstitutional, and I’m pro-life…but I might vote for a Democrat this year because I want a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants - and I don’t know six months out? Yeah, that’s the guy I want voting for Democrats in the primary.
Semiclosed – registered independents can choose one of the party primaries to participate in, but offically affiliated voters have to stay in their lane; declaration of party affiliation or nonaffiliation locked out shortly before the primary (not as much as 6 months; I’ll say 45 days), no down-to-the-wire changing. I have no trouble with the independents supporting candidates that reflect their views, but I do not want card-carrying activists of one party at the last minute trying to troll the other’s primary.
Around here we have a laughable fiction that our Prez primaries are “closed”, apparently for the sake of some sort of incentive from the National Committees. Laughable, because we are NOT officially registered by either local or national party at the Elections Commission: our affiliation is done directly with the party and anyone can declare their affiliation upon arriving at the polling place for the primary by checking a box and signing, whereupon you’ll be sent to the line for the party you checked. So all it means is you can’t vote on both on the same date. (And this year our R and D primaries are 3 months apart so even that gets blown away.)
I’m a registered Democrat who has always voted in the Democrat primaries, although in general elections I have voted for one Republican, one Libertarian, one Green Party candidate, and two independents in my 30 years as a voter. I have also occasionally voted for referendums not exactly as a Democrat might be expected to vote.
But I have always voted as a Democrat in the primaries. I have been tempted to cast sabotage votes by voting as a Republican, and in this particular election, I am sorely, sorely tempted, because I do not want Todd Young to go to the senate, and as long as I am voting against him, I could vote against Trump, because if he loses the primary, I think there is a good chance he’ll run as an independent and cost the Republicans the election.
However, it means saying to the judge (the poll worker, not the guy in the black robe) “Republican,” and I don’t think I can do that.
I also know it’s dishonest, and I know that I want to be able to say I voted for Clinton.
I think there are probably a lot of saboteurs in a state like Indiana, though. If Trump were having a stronger showing, I’d worry about a lot of cross-over votes for Sanders in Indiana.
I think it should be easy to switch affiliation, but you should have to declare it well in advance of the primary, because I don’t think cross-over sabotage voting is good for the country. If you had to declare affiliation say, three months ahead of the primary, if you were either an independent or switching affiliations, then people wouldn’t make last minute decisions to cross-over vote based on standings right before the election, and would be much less likely to do it.
Another reason I think they should be closed is that a lot of people don’t even know what they are.
When I work at the polls, there are always people who show up to the primaries and declare themselves to be independent when asked their affiliation, and so you have to explain the purpose of the primary to them. Then they argue with you, and tell you they have the right to vote for anyone they want. They don’t even know what they are there to do. With closed primaries, you won’t have this problem.
I don’t think it matters so much what rules are used. The Parties are basically private clubs that can decide for themselves how they want to choose their nominees. If they choose a method that alienates the voting public, well that’s a self-correcting problem.
However, I do think it would be beneficial for the national parties to establish one set of rules for all the primaries. It’s just a relic of history that each state is currently free to set whatever stupid rules it wants. So much of the chaos and confusion in our election system could be resolved if each state used a standard process for holding elections. I think that process should also be used at all general elections as well. There’s simply no good reason to go on allowing states to just wing it when it comes to writing their election rules.
The only people who gain from this current mare’s nest are the people trying to depress voter turnout and play games with the numbers. It undermines our whole electoral system.
People should have a free choice for their candidates. There are more independents than either or Republicans or Democrats, there is reason that these two major parties should control the election process. Independents have no say in the rules of these party elections, voters in primaries whether open or closed do not have control over contested situations, and there is no reasonable oversight of this process, or recourse in the case of the parties not following their own rules. Beyond that you can draw your own conclusions about the level of corruption that this party controlled process creates.
The point is to have an orderly process to determine which candidates should appear on election ballots. The people should have the means to narrow the field in order to choose from a reasonable number of candidates in the final election. What has happened with party controlled primaries is the choice is narrowed to two candidates by a small number of people controlling the process.
What would be the advantages to becoming “officially affiliated” in such a system?
I’m not worried about mischief. I can’t see that a significant humber of folks are going to give up voting for their preferred party person just to screw with the other side. People are too lazy to be that devious.
Yet it’s exactly what happened in 2014 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. There were no significant primaries on the Republican side. So a huge amount of otherwise Republican voters crossed over and voted in the Democratic party. This is how narcissistic blow hard David Clarke got reelected as Sheriff. Had there been any significant primary on the Republican side the crossover would not have happened and Clarke would be gone. ( 
).
I think I’ve made my position clear over the years here: There should be no primaries at all! Top party leaders & members should pick the candidates and present them to the public. Why on Earth should Joe Sixpack decide who is going to be a parties nominee?
If this means a return to the “Smoke Filled Room” so be it!
But if there must be a primary they certainly should be closed.
Isn’t the real issue here the effective domination of US elections by the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties, neither of which are popular movements controlled by or accountable to their members, but both of which are oligarchies of the political establishment?
Given that problem, I think it’s right that the primary system should be mandated, basically to force the parties to be more accountable to the public, at least in their selection of candidates.
On the other hand, the whole point of political parties in a democracy is that they are supposed to represent diverse interest and/or viewpoints. If every citizen has exactly the same say in the selection of both Democratic and Republican candidates, then in the end you’d expect the Democratic and Republican candidates to be indistinguishable in terms of the interests/viewpoints they represent, which means that in the general election the voters are denied a real choice. Which you would expect voters to respond to by not voting (because what difference will it make which of them is elected?). Which, to some extent, is what we see; turnout in American elections is low.
So, yeah, the primary system is good, but it shouldn’t work to eliminate differences between parties. Different people, representing different interests and viewpoints, should vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries. So, closed primaries.
I take the points people have made about “spoilers”; people who vote in (say) the Republican primary in order to try to secure the nomination of the Republican candidate with the least chance of winning the general election. That’s not a good thing; the people who participate in a party’s primary should, generally speaking, be those who identify with, or are aligned with, the party’s ideology, values and positions. They should be genuine supporters, in other words - people who, in other countries, might actually be members of or active in the party, or of affiliated organisations. (Remember, it’s because US parties aren’t membership-based that primaries exist).
How can you ensure that only committed supporters vote in a party’s primary? You can’t. But you can certainly look for rather more than a declaration made on the day. And you can certainly adopt a test designed to exclude opportunistic spoilers from the other party.
How about this: You can register as a Republican or a Democrat at any time, and change your registration at any time. But a year has to pass before your registration, or changed registration, become effective to allow you to vote in the primary of the party you are registered for. Thus, your declared affiliation has to have endured for at least a year before it authorises you to vote in the party primary. If you change your affiliation, you either have to do so more than a year before the nIsn’t the real issue here the effective domination of US elections by the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties, neither of which are popular movements controlled by or accountable to their members, but both of which are oligarchies of the political establishment?
Given that problem, I think it’s right that the primary system should be mandated, basically to force the parties to be more accountable to the public, at least in their selection of candidates.
On the other hand, the whole point of political parties in a democracy is that they are supposed to represent diverse interest and/or viewpoints. If every citizen has exactly the same say in the selection of both Democratic and Republican candidates, then in the end you’d expect the Democratic and Republican candidates to be indistinguishable in terms of the interests/viewpoints they represent, which means that in the general election the voters are denied a real choice. Which you would expect voters to respond to by not voting (because what difference will it make which of them is elected?). Which, to some extent, is what we see; turnout in American elections is low.
So, yeah, the primary system is good, but it shouldn’t work to eliminate differences between parties. Different people, representing different interests and viewpoints, should vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries. So, closed primaries.
I take the points people have made about “spoilers”; people who vote in (say) the Republican primary in order to try to secure the nomination of the Republican candidate with the least chance of winning the general election. That’s not a good thing; the people who participate in a party’s primary should, generally speaking, be those who identify with, or are aligned with, the party’s ideology, values and positions. They should be genuine supporters, in other words - people who, in other countries, might actually be members of or active in the party, or of affiliated organisations. (Remember, it’s because US parties aren’t membership-based that primaries exist).
How can you ensure that only committed supporters vote in a party’s primary? You can’t. But you can certainly look for rather more than a declaration made on the day. And you can certainly adopt a test designed to exclude opportunistic spoilers from the other party.
How about this: You can register as a Republican or a Democrat at any time, and change your registration at any time. But a year has to pass before your registration, or changed registration, become effective to allow you to vote in the primary of the party you are registered for. Thus, your declared affiliation has to have endured for at least a year before it authorises you to vote in the party primary. If you change your affiliation, you either have to do so more than a year before the next primary (at a time when you will have no real idea who the candidates will be) or else miss out on participating in the next primary.
ext primary (at a time when you will have no real idea who the candidates will be) or else miss out on participating in the next primary.
Agreed again. Let the primaries be as closed as they want to be if they don’t take a penny of tax dollars. But the parties are heavily subsidized by the gummint, so public interests should be paramount.
And there’s a social benefit to maximizing participation in the political process: the more people feel involved, feel like their voices are counted, the more cohesive our society is.
Worrying about shenanigans is, I think, overblown. The number of people who actually engage in such shenanigans is pretty small. Most people take it seriously.
So: primaries should be open. On the day of voting, you should decide which party primary you want to vote in (this is my one concession to shenanigan-minimizing: being able to vote in both would prove irresistible to too many people). Caucuses should go away.
Alternatively, these two private clubs should hold their damn primaries in church basements and smoky hallways and not ask for my tax dollars to facilitate them.
Guess I’m not lazy, then. My “party affiliation” over the years has flip-flopped according to where I thought my vote would have the most effect. I’m all into the mischief.
From a party perspective, you’re right. From a social perspective, I don’t see anything wrong with choosing each year whether you want to vote in a way that maximizes gains or minimizes harm. (That is, vote for the least damaging of the opposition, or the best of your party).
The “strategic” sabotage votes are the issues here, and I think one major counterargument is the propensity to register for the other party just to vote for some insane moon person that you think will lose. But as long as the votes are in good faith, that is, you’re legitimately voting for the person you “most like” in that party, I don’t see the harm in trying to select for the person you disagree with least in the party you won’t be voting for in the general, if you find that more important than voting for “your guy” in the party you agree with.
Again, in 2 party American politics.
This, by the way, is a ridiculous complaint. Given that from the beginning I’ve supported Sanders because I think his candidacy has a chance to change the parameters of discussion in our country, and given that “Overton Window” perfectly describes the nature of how that change might happen, and given that my perspective seems to be pretty common, your objection is that people have a reason for supporting a candidate you don’t like, and they mention that reason. This is one of those occasions where a healthy dose of Get Over It is prescribed.
I didn’t say they couldn’t change every year, just that forethought would have to be put into that change - not changing parties in the middle of the Primary season.
I wouldn’t change every year - I think a party is something you have loyalty to.
OK enough with the “If the taxpayers are paying for it then anyone should vote wherever; parties be damned.”
Colorado is starting to move to a primary because too many Coloradans were left out of the caucus process. I couldn’t go because I work Tuesday nights so I was in effect disenfranchised. We taxpayers are going to pay for a primary to make sure every Colorado voter has an opportunity to vote in their party’s primary. For those of you that advocate open primaries, explain to me why a Republican should be allowed to select the Democratic nominee? For that matter, why should independent who choose not to be in a party be allowed to choose the parties’ nominee? Since when has an outsider EVER been allowed to pick the leader of an organization they do not belong to?
WTF kind of lame argument is that? You think you can just say, “Stop raising this point!” and people will stop raising that point? For realz?
“A Republican” is the problem. The state shouldn’t concern itself with membership in a private organization. If the parties want taxpayer subsidizing of their popularity contests, they should let all taxpayers (well, all taxpayers eligible to vote) participate, regardless of whether said taxpayers have any sort of membership in their private organization. If they don’t want to let all taxpaying voters participate, they shouldn’t ask taxpayers for subsidies. Easy peasy.
It ain’t about outsiders, it’s about who’s footing the bill. You want me to pay for your banquet, you better let me eat.
If both of our banquets are paid for, then you eat your and I eat mine. Deal?
But have you been casting votes for people that you actually thought were terrible, and wanted to lose?