Both of these ideas are ridiculous. There is no “other party.” I don’t belong to either party, nor do a lot of people. There are parties that decide to take advantage of state resources to run them and who have generated a virtual monopoly on our political process. Closing these parties off forces people either to declare loyalty to a party they may not feel loyalty to, or to remove themsevles from a vital part of the American political process.
Since the state has an interest in maximizing participation in the political process, in order to gain maximum buy-in, the state should use its influence to remove barriers to participation. Closed primaries comprise such a barrier.
Comparing it to other state functions in which maximal participation is not desirable, to other state functions that don’t consist of asking citizenry to make choices, is the worst sort of lazy analogy. You and Dseid should be embarrassed to make these analogies.
As for suggesting that without state-sponsored primaries, minor parties couldn’t participate, this is also silly. Currently third parties have virtually no chance in the system, so talking about disenfranchising them is carrying coals to Newcastle, or that metaphor’s inverse anyway. Telling parties taht they must have open primaries if they want to participate would have very little if any effect on third parties.
I am sorry that you fail to see the validity of the analogy LOHD.
Your position was, explicitly, that since you (by way of being a taxpayer) are paying for both, you should be able to participate in either one, be you member of neither or even of the other. You however believe that other things that you and others, as taxpayers, pay for both of, does not entitle you to use either.
Okay. I am duly embarrassed I guess.
Cutting to the point that you obliquely made that has some cogency though … is the claim that the state has an interest in maximizing participation in, not just the general election process, but the process by which parties choose their candidates.
Please note: higher primary participation does not necessarily correlate with higher general election participation.
So is maximizing participation in the nomination (not the general election) process by those who do not identify with the party process they are participating in a state interest? Is it in the interest of the general good to force the choice of party nominees to be to large degree a function of the preferences of those who are not willing to believably self-identify as part of that party?
I do not think so. I believe there is value in having different parties with differing visions to offer the general public and forcing the parties to have their nominees decided upon to increasing degree by those who are not believably of the parties works against that system.
Because the forum rules require me to assume you’re being honest, I’m glad to hear that.
I’m not at all convinced there’s any value to the two-party system at all, and if it were up to me I’d remove it from state-supported politics entirely. But if it is going to exist, and if it’s going to dominate an entire stage of our elections, we need to remove barriers to participation in it, just as we need to remove barriers to participation in all levels of democracy. Maintaining this one level as a members-only club undermines democracy.
I agree with this post most of any I’ve read. From parties’ POV it’s about their interests as private organizations, only naturally. They have open primaries, where they do, because they think that’s in the party’s interest to strengthen their attachment with ‘independents’ who are really members of their party except in name, and AFAIK most though not all ‘independents’ who actually vote do so pretty consistently for one of the two major parties. I was an ‘independent’ who almost always voted for one of the major parties very seldom the other. I eventually registered as ‘member’ to vote in closed primaries, when it seemed the presidential primary in my state (a late one) would actually matter. I think this is fairly typical. Open primaries give such voters more connection with their de facto party without admitting publicly, or to themselves, that affiliation, when it’s become more socially fashionable to be ‘an independent’. And I think fashion mainly explains the trend away from party affiliation, not that parties are actually that much worse now than they always have been.
However it’s clear that open primaries can produce results that hard core party members or leaders don’t like. I’d expect a trend toward more closed ones on the GOP side after the Trump phenomenon. Open primaries and more loosely affiliated voters aren’t the only reason of his strength in GOP primaries, but it’s perceived as one of the reasons.
I also agree to tread lightly on the ‘I’m paying so I get call the tune’ gambit wrt to the minuscule % of public spending which supports or facilitates party nominating processes. The govt is now so deeply infiltrated in every aspect of life that that argument used without consideration and balance can justify squelching just about every and any non-governmental civic organization. Likewise there was reference by somebody to ‘states shouldn’t be allowed to’ which assumes a unipolar American society where the federal govt dictates everything. The states are sovereign entities, not administrative divisions whose every action is dictated by the federal govt. IMO that system is still a strength on balance for such a large and diverse country.
It can help the dominant party, since you often wind up with two candidates from the party in November, which reduces the chances of your candidate screwing it up somehow and losing to one from the other party who’d have had less support than the loser of the primary.
BTW, you can have ballot measures on the primary ballot which gives a good reason for the state to pay and which might drive turnout.
That’s actually happing in PA this year (ballot measures being very rare here). We have a strict closed primary system (if you want to switch parties you have to do it at least 30 days before the election) and on Tuesday we’re voting on a constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 (technically it’s the end of the year in which they reach retirement age). Independent (& minor party?) voters will get a ballot with only that question on it.
This is very common for tax levies in Ohio. Levies commence at the beginning of the next year no matter when they’re passed, so putting them on the primary ballot means there’s an opportunity for a do-over in November if the voters don’t do what they’re told. (As you can see I’m a little cynical about the multiple bites at the apple, although sometimes the voters do genuinely bizarre stuff like approve a capital levy to build an additional fire station but at the same time reject an operating levy to hire new firefighters.)
Which is wxactly the problem alluded to by a couple of posters. “I’m an independent and not a member of either party … until convenient to partake in the political process.” According to this site, there are more independent voters in Denver than either major party so the question is why don’t we have an independent mayor? Is it because they self-sabotage and vote D/R during the elections?
You speak as if independents are a cohesive group who would all vote for the same unaffiliated person.
Instead some find the GOP to not be conservative enough and some find the Democrats insufficiently progressive. Some strongly lean one way or the other.
Just want to add my agreement w/ views expressed by Tripolar and RNATB. It is fine and dandy for us on this board to discuss that primaries are run by private organizations, but does the process allow the average citizen to draw that distinction? And does the process give the 2 main parties undue influence in the general election?
My polling place for the primary and general is the same (and don’t get me started on how much I dislike that it is a church! ;)) I suspect that that alone is enough to persuade many voters that both are “state actions.” And, to my embarrassment, as an ex-PolSci, lawyer, major and longtime gov’t employee, I admit my personal ignorance in so many aspects of the election process. Not to excuse my personal ignorance, but if I tend to be confused about aspects of the electoral process, I suspect others are as well.
There definitely is some benefit in narrowing the list of candidates on the final ballot. I would far prefer some sort of a wide open primary, followed by a run off of the top vote-getters. If the parties want to decide whom they support in the initial round, I’ve got no objection to that occurring in a smoke-filled room.
Absolutely not. Just pointing out that many independents vote Democratic or Republicans so as to not throw their vote away or because they pick the party they most agree with that election. The ones I am speaking about specifically are those that are independent because they disagree with both parties and want change but self-sabotage by perseverating the two party system with their votes.
Here’s what I don’t get. Why not just mail us nomination ballots that we mail back to state headquarters? I’d even support that such mailings are postage free.
Regular elections happen at those times, but special elections and recall elections can happen at any time. There’s good reason why we shouldn’t have to delay elections for six months, and good reason why people should be able to choose a party for any given election. So there are legitimate cases where a 6-month delay is too long.
I’d be fine with a longer pre-reg time for normal elections, but I’m not convinced that the 30-day limit is really an issue. The number of people who strategically register for a political party is probably quite small.
I’m fine with the parties doing what they want. And I’m fine with the elections being closed, although as long as they’re using public money, they should be in practice open to all citizens, and you shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to become a voting member. Mailing in a form every once in a while is not an arduous requirement.
I’m a part of the small group as well, but, still, there are very few of us. And I expect that most of us are highly politically active and informed, which means that a longer lead time to register wouldn’t make much difference.
They should be random, in the sense of randomly picking a few hundred or few thousand citizens of the venue and offering them the chance to participate in a weekend caucus/party. Let the candidates make their speeches and shake hands/kiss babies and see what response they get.
There are all kinds of gradations of ‘independents’, we all agree. IMO/IME most are de facto Democrats or Republicans and it’s just become more fashionable to call oneself ‘independent’. And keep in mind that many registered Democrats or Republicans are also to the left or right of where their party comes out practically (in either direction for either party). And almost everyone in the US says ‘the political system isn’t working well’ if asked in polls.
So even in your stripped down version of ‘independents because they disagree with both parties’ I’m not sure you’re identifying anything very important. You can’t beat something with nothing. And a typical pattern of attempted or suggested third parties in the US in recent history is that they either don’t turn out to appeal to anybody much, or they overlap a lot more with one of the major parties than the other, so would really mean just a tendency to one party rule by the major party from whom they siphon fewer votes.
Historically when new parties took off in the US to become one of the two majors (rise of the GOP in the 1850’s) or a temporarily significant third party (the Socialists in late 19th/early 20th century) they had a specific issue or set of views not represented by existing parties (no more new slave states in GOP case, socialism as sharply opposed to the consensus for lightly regulated capitalism and a very small federal welfare state, both by today’s standards, of GOP and Dems in the Socialists’ time). It wasn’t just ‘I don’t agree’ with the major parties.
