Every citizen “belongs to” the country.
That’s what the general is for.
I’m helping to pay for both, it’s my decision which one to eat at, not yours. You want to make up special rules about when I can eat, or when I can decide which one I’ll eat at, you pay for it yourself. Deal?
Yes, sometimes.
ETA: and, indeed they have!
The idea that the parties are private entities is essentially a legal fiction. They are de facto arms of the government. It’s time we recognized that any updated our laws accordingly, rather than pursuing the ridiculous refrain that “the founders didn’t recognize political parties!”
Even if it’s mischievous, eg Democrats voting for the Republican candidate they think most likely to lose in the election? I think closed is far better, although it should be left to the individual states to decide.
So if parties decide they’d rather have control than public funding, and initiate another huge round of fund-raising from corporate donors to pay for their primaries, this is better somehow?
I’d call them de facto criminal organizations that should be shut down using RICO statutes.
Anyone want to explain why almost every single elected and appointed official of the US government from the national level down to the smallest locality is a registered member of the Republican or Democratic party even though there are more voters registered as Independent than in either party? It’s not hard to explain, it’s out and out corruption, the entire purpose of those two major parties is to subvert the democratic process.
As long as they get no support from the state, yeah. I say this knowing there’s zero chance of this happening, because they’re not going to give up things like having their party affiliation appear on ballots, or having their primaries organized for them.
So long as people are only voting in one primary or the other, I don’t see what difference it makes. If I think it’s more important that the worse GOP (or better!) candidate is nominated than that Bernie is nominated over Hilary, I should be able to make that choice.
I am of the opinion that “open primaries” actually perpetuate the two party system. There is no impetus for creating and nurturing a real 3rd or 4th party, if you can just jump in during Presidential Primary time and decide to vote for a person who is similar to you from from the two major parties. I would argue that the fans of Senator Bernie Sanders, who don’t necessarily consider themselves “Democrats”, who are voting in big numbers for him in the Democratic primaries actually hurts Jill Stein of the Green Party, and fans of Senator Rand Paul, who don’t usually consider themselves “Republican” coming in to vote for Paul (which, granted weren’t that many) in the Republican Primary actually hurts Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.
That being said, I would indicate that I agree with those upthread who said independents aren’t necessarily politically undecided. They are partisan independents, but don’t want to be associated with a party for whatever reason. Heck, Bernie Sanders is an obvious example of a partisan independent - he caucuses and votes with the Democrats, but until now didn’t want to be referred as such.
So, I’d be strongly in favor of a closed primary system with 60 days prior to the primary election for you to declare which party you are a member of. “Independents” would have to make a choice - are you really a Republican or Democrat who doesn’t want to publicly call yourself that, or are you truly independent and more inclined to be a supporter of the Green Party or Libertarian Party, etc.
So since tax dollars are used to fund the national security apparatus everyone should have access to all of it? And since I am paying tax dollars for the school systems it is my choice which school my child attends?
A very silly argument.
As a society we have decided that public funding of the nomination process is in our greater good. I agree with that position.
Does “the state” have a clear vested interest in allowing those who have no party identification, or even are typically of the other party, to be part of deciding a party’s candidate?
I do not think so. Public funding of a process that a private organization participates in in no way implies that the private organization gives up the right to decide what the rules of membership are and how membership chooses its leadership.
Now it is argued that being open helps a party more than it hurts it, as it encourages those unaffiliated or marginally affiliated to identify with the party, and possibly that will translate to more votes in the Fall and in the future. I am partial to that argument and believe that “mischievous” voting is so rarely of any significance that the advantages of being mostly open offsets it by far.
I do think however that the wide variation of state party methods hurts the perceived validity of the process.
Sanders, like the handful of independents ever elected to congress, has to side with a major party or he’d have no part in most congressional business and be unable to represent his state effectively. And he had no choice but to run for President as a Democrat in order to have any chance at all. Being partisan about issues shouldn’t mean you have to pick one of the two corrupt major parties to associate with, it’s forced upon candidates.
Why should I have to associate myself with those political parties in order to have a say who appears on the ballot in the general election? That’s the way gangs take power, you’re either with the Crips or the Bloods and no one has your back if you don’t choose. Do you think that’s an appropriate model for our political system?
This is what they do in my state. We had open party primaries, but one party was outraged when the other side crossed over an voted up their most ridiculous candidate, so that party sued the state over allowing monkeywrenching. The state tried a couple different things, then went to a top-two open primary.
It does work fairly well – at the state level, at least. Some districts end up with two contestants of the same party “preference” in November, but that still offers the voters a choice (typically between moderate and ideologuish).
On a national level, I could see a scheme where each voter would receive/obtain three dated ballots in the spring (say, starting in mid-April) with all the declared candidates on them: voting dates would be regionally staggered, giving the candidates a chance to travel, campaign and schmooze, and totals would be tallied and reported after every voting round, so that support for various candidates would be easily observable. Voters would be able to switch if their candidate is failing, just let their vote ride, or hold off voting to see how it is breaking.
In September, a second set of three ballots are issued for the final vote, which would eliminate many lesser candidates from the list. The same basic rules apply: a voter may cast a vote early and may switch their vote based on early results or may stand firm; if they recorded a choice in the first round, that choice will stand if they do not record a choice in the fall.
The gap (the first round would end in July) would give the parties a chance to hold conventions to register an endorsement of a, presumably leading-ish, candidate, and for minor contenders to officially concede/withdraw and be removed from the final ballot.
This could be done as a strict popular vote or as a strict electoral vote, where the voters select an actual elector (or two) who will participate in a real electoral college (convention) to choose the president: electors would be required to list the top three candidates they support for the office.
It certainly can be done. But it’s unlikely to happen at the national level for a very long time. Some states, particularly the oldest states in the Eastern US have the political parties heavily entrenched in government and would never give up their power voluntarily. You’ll see this in the party rule changes at the convention this year, both parties will claim to make their process more democratic, and they may actually do so this year as a pretense, but four years from now, or less if there is an insurgency within a party, you’ll see them clamp down tighter. These parties are nothing without their control of the election process.
I agree, and you shouldn’t make such silly arguments. I know I don’t.
Caucus is crap. Closed Primary is the best.
They dont exclude them. You may register for any party you choose.
There’s a lot of complaints about caucuses this year, rather unjustly I think. They’re no worse than closed primaries if closed, and whether open or closed at least the voters gather to discuss and decide their choices. It is horribly inefficient, but for small states it doesn’t seem that bad compared to the primary system. I don’t want it used, but I don’t want the current party controlled primary system either and I have a hard time seeing the complaints about caucuses anything but the pot calling the kettle black.
This argument is absolutely ludicrous, that somehow since you are paying taxes you get a say in who the other party selects. So let me ask you this, since your tax dollars pay for the new state prison can you go in and use the offices anytime you want? Since Planned Parenthood receives tax money, do you have a say in who is in charge of it? Since the state funds state colleges, do you get to vote for the President/Chancellor?
The reason that the state pays for a primary is to ensure that the voters can participate in the elective process. This is the exact argument my state is having. And here is another point: people complain of the duopoly the Dems and Pubs have on the political process. If you did not have state-sponsored primaries then there would be no way for minor parties take part.