Yes it has. It happened right here where I live with my former boss, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke.
Clarke was a homicide dick for the Milwaukee Police Department. He was inept, shady, drunk, and despised by most on the force. But somehow Governor Scott McCallum pulled his name out of his ass when Sheriff Lev Baldwin retired early. Instead of choosing someone already working in the Sheriffs Office McCallum appointed Clarke Sheriff.
Clarkes politics are conservative Republican. But a Republican cannot get elected Sheriff in Milwaukee County. So when Clarke ran for election and re-election he’d run as a Democrat even though the party shunned him. Basically whomever wins the Democratic primary will win the general election for Sheriff. It’s been that way virtually forever.
Clarke would win the Democratic primary by having otherwise Republican voters cross over during Wisconsins stupid open primary and vote for him. They would do that because for years there were no high profile primaries on the Republican ticket. By the time we have our Presidential primary the race is pretty well sewn up.
Clarke conned otherwise Republican voters with this image of a no nonsense, tough on crime classic lawman. When in reality he was a do nothing all talk and no action buffoon.
Even with those crossover voters some of Clarkes wins were close.
In 2017 Clarke was hot to get the hell out.
Why?
Because in 2018 there IS an important primary on the Republican ticket, the race for U.S. Senate. Those Republican voters are going to stay on their side of the fence this year. Without those crossover voters in an open primary Clarke knew he could not win a primary and would get blown out of the water by a 65-35 or even a 70-30 percentage. He’s a huge narcissist and his ego wouldn’t handle such a publicly humiliating defeat.
If not for those crossover voters in an open primary Clarke would have served out the remainder of Baldwins term that he was appointed to, lost the primary when he ran for his own term, and drifted off to obscurity. Good riddance to bad rubbish. But instead the public got subjected to 15 more years of his nonsense.
The primary system and especially open primaries are the bane of our Republic.
There are ways to game every system. You and I will forever disagree on the greater evil - you say open primaries, I say single party voting. With all due respect to the Atlantic Monthly, sometimes voting for people to change in a party is better than voting against the status quo. Voting against the status quo is what got us where we are today.
What you are leeaving out here is that I think primaries in and of themselves are bad, open primaries being even worse. Having the general public decide who is going to represent an organization is absurd and defeats the entire purpose of having political parties with stated platforms. It doesn’t just allow the results to be skewed, it also allows for RINOS and DINOS to get elected and stray from those platforms, as well as the unqualified to get elected. It puts a party in an awkward position of having an elected member they don’t really want. Like my example of David Clarke running as a Democrat.
You wouln’t expect to get to decide who was the president at Walmart unless you were a stock holder, would you? You wouldn’t expect to get to vote for board members of the National Rifle Association unless you actually belonged to the NRA, would you? Of course not.
Then why do you believe you have a right to decide who a political party will run as their candidate in the general election when you are not a party leader or even a member?
You don’t really think actual members and leaders of the Republican Party would have chosen Donald Trump to represent them in the general election, do you?
Wait, you’re saying that the major parties would deliberately forego the opportunity for a lot of publicity, just because you suggested it? I don’t think your suggestions carry all that much weight with the powers that be in either party. So why, other than your suggestions, would they choose to do something which they quite clearly consider to be against their best interests?
You don’t have right to tell a political party who they can run if you are not a member of that party. Where do you get off thinking you do? Just because they have tolerated the primary game doesn’t mean they have to.
Any party could return to the smoke filled room days and tell the likes of you to F.O… But until all parties agree to that it isn’t going to happen. But the idea you have a right to dictate to an organization you don’t belong to is laughable.
Dude, the OP asked what we think the best way to choose candidates is, and I’m putting forward my opinion. Why the fuck are you going after me on this? Do you always get this bent when someone offers an opinion that carries no weight whatsoever? Should I clear my opinions with you in PM before posting?
And what I am saying is that the parties might be better off re-taking a little bit of control of how they choose the person to represent them at the presidential level. Is that ok with you for me to hold that opinion?
And that was not what I was arguing. We are probably closer to agreement on primaries in general, but if there are going to be primaries then I believe, for the reasons I stated before, they should be open.
As Johnny Ace said, as a citizen I am “invested” in having the best candidate represent me. If there are going to be primaries, I have a vested interest in voting for the best candidates.
And therein lies the rub - the parties are so out of touch that “the people” said ‘screw you and the horses you rode in on, we’re going rogue’. Had there been no primaries and the public were “force fed” two candidates of the party’s choosing, an independent would have had a great shot last election - IMHO, of course. To me, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I’m not convinced that a 2 party system, with no real chance for an outsider to mount an effective challenge, is the way to go.
One thing this discussion has convinced me of is that even if primaries are a good idea, open primaries are a terrible idea and jungle primaries a disaster. And no argument has convinced me that primaries are a good idea.
Do American political parties even have ‘members’? You can vote for D or R, donate to D or R, and walk precincts or attend meetings for D and R, but I didn’t think either D or R had ‘memberships.’(*)
“I’m a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party” is just a whimsical expression, no?
(* - Yes, you can register as D or R, but that means little in this context, especially with closed primaries. Last election some R’s might have registered D to vote Sanders as sabotage; and some D’s registered R to vote Trump as attempted sabotage.)
You have that backwards. You’re thinking of an open primary.
In an open primary one doesn’t register for a party but usually can only vote on for one parties primary, but then is not obligated to vote for that party during the general election. Hence, they get to manipulate who will run in the general.
In more than half the states you have to declare a party and vote within that party for that election cycle. if we must have primaries that is the way to do it. I gave a very good, recent, and (for me, anyway) local example [David Clarke] about how open primaries skew the results and then the general election.
Another example against open primaries is John McCain. McCain would not have won several primaries in 2008 had Democrats not crossed over in open primary states and voted for him. McCain fell under the delusion that this meant he was popular to both parties. The left sure showed him in November, didn’t they?
A recent example extolling the evil of primaries in and of themselves is Donald Trump. You don’t really think Trump would have been the candidate had the party bosses, or at very least, registered Republicans had been the only ones deciding the candidate, do you?
Open primaries make a farce out of the entire democratic system. They leave the election vulnerable to manipulation and dilution. Open primary laws also violates my freedom of association, because it forces me to allow outsiders to select the candidate of the party I back, and then they don’t have to vote for that candidate in the general election. WTF kind of deal is that?:mad: I’ve posted a couple of good, recent arguments against primaries and open primaries. But some people think it’s their right to decide who their guy get’s to run against and muck up the entire system.
Primaries are not a good way to choose a candidate. Open primaries are even worse!
In other words, you want to take away ‘some people’s’ choice to vote in the way that they want, REGARDLESS of their reasoning. I’m going to wager that you’re a Republican.
You’re from Wisconsin? And you list among your interests “guns, guns, guns, and more guns?” And you list yourself as former law enforcement? Yeah, I’d say I win that bet.
No, I want to prevent people from voting in a parties primary, getting a candidate the nomination, and then in the general election voting for that candidates opponent. Open primaries are not used in the majority of the states, so it’s not like I’m alone on this. Answer me this: Why do you think you should be able to decide who your guy runs against? Why do you think you should be able to switch sides between the primary and general elections and manipulate who is on the ballot? You are aware that this isn’t legal in the majority of the states, correct?
Actually I’m a retired (after 25 years) Deputy Sheriff. When I wrote my profile I’d only been working a part-time patrol job, but went full time when it was offered so I can score another pension. I’ve updated it. Thanks for pointing the inaccuracy our to me.
Also, I own a successful gun dealership. So the guns comment isn’t out of line.
So, you’re saying that, once someone’s declared their party, they’ve given up their right to vote for whoever they consider best in the general election? I think that’s a very high baby to bathwater ratio you’re throwing out, there.
If you’re not saying that voting in the primary means giving up your rights in the general, then an open primary is exactly the same as a closed one, because political party affiliation is so easy to change. My lifelong hippie mother is, right this moment, officially a Republican, because the last primary she voted in, she considered it important to stop Trump at all costs, by voting for Kasich instead. Come this May, she’ll (probably) be officially a Democrat again.
That is the way it works for most states, at least for that election cycle. So why do you act like I have some radical idea when it is actually the norm?
Had Kasich won would your mother of voted for him in the general? If not can you not see the lunacy of allowing people to manipulate the election?
Also can you not see how the primary system itself gave us Trump?
These aren’t that outlandish of things I’m posting here. A majority percentage of the states agree with me.
On this side of puddle, the local branch (electorate) of each political party holds pre-selections in every seat. If the incumbent member of parliament is standing again,they typically win, but they are often challenged and sometimes lose.
At the preselection meetings any prospective candidates stands up before the local branch preselection committee and gives their “pick-me” stump speech (with plenty of pre-meeting lobbying/shenanigans).
There is often a stoush between the local branch and the state/federal branch if the Feds try to parachute in an “eminent” candidate in over the locals preferences.
So the political party apparatus determines who will be the candidate. As to the quality of candidates, it varies. Usually you get two electable options at federal level. The candidates financial status is rarely an issue; if anything millionaire candidates usually struggle to get elected. I’m not sure I could name a case of when none of the candidate standing has the capability for elected office, though the one good 'un doesn’t always win. You get more charlatans pre-selected in the state parliaments. Opposition candidates trying to win unwinnable “blue ribbon” seats are not always top shelf. Few certifiable ratbags get through and plus the odd Belinda Neale or Bronwyn Bishop because of party connections rather than innate political ability.
Parliamentarians typically have to win a second term or more before they have the seniority & accumulated brownie points to be promoted to significant offices. Newbies (usually) can’t get elected as Prime Minister or Premier in their first term. Bob Hawke served only a short apprenticeship before becoming PM but Hawkie was a known political operator for decades previously. Campbell Newman in Queensland was elected Premier after winning his first election and got turfed out after a single term. Protest candidates usually need to get to the big house as independents rather than mainstream parties.
If they win, the candidate becomes one of the parliamentary political party. The relationship between parliamentary party and the political party is often not fully functional.
In the LIBs the parliamentary party has primacy on what happens in the parliament. The “rank & file” Liberal party branches want to say Australia to sell off some public institution but the LIB MPs make up their own collective mind. The rationale for this is the MP is responsible for the interests of their electorate as a whole, not the interests of the tiny proportion who are actually party members.
The LABs broadly takes the opposite view, i.e. parliamentary policy is determined by the political party, particularly at the Labor National Conference, though the LAB leaders and MPs have been winning greater control over their affairs since the LABs started winning elections.
