By “states”, you mean something other than the 50 constituent parts of the US? Because it doesn’t work that way in any state in the US. I’ve never heard of anywhere else in the world where it works that way, either, but I’ll admit that there might be some place that does it somewhere.
Everywhere in the US, Republicans are allowed to vote for Democrats in the general election if they so choose, and Democrats are allowed to vote for Republicans.
You want to prevent. Uh huh.
I notice you didn’t answer the question. Are you a Republican?
Wait, are you saying that they require you to vote for republicans if you voted in the republican primary?
How do they even enforce that? Is your ballot not secret?
What if you like most of the people on the ballot, but not one or two guys? From what you are saying, you are not able to split your vote, you have to go straight down the ballot for the one party.
There were people who voted in the republican primary in 2016, then went on to vote for republicans for down ticket races, but clinton for president. Were they breaking some sort of law?
Not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but in areas where you have a high portion of one party over the other, voting in that party’s primary makes sense.
Where my parents live (and I have lived), democrats do not win. Ever. The last democrat to win a local position here was in the 70’s. So voting in the democratic primary is kinda silly. There aren’t many candidates even running, and even fewer that have opposition, so you get to check a couple boxes for people who won’t win in the general.
Everyone votes in the republican primary, as that is where local government is elected. The general in november is just a formality.
Not exactly the same question you asked, but I’m aware of this law:
https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/article_4bea8ea7-1e97-56a8-b48f-db62c80300f0.html
“Virginia voters do not register by party, and voting in primaries is open to anyone. However, state law allows a political party to request that voters sign a pledge or statement of party affiliation before casting primary ballots.”
In the vast majority of states, if you want to vote in the Republican primary for President, then you’re also going to be voting in the Republican primary for Senate, Governor, House, etc. Except in a few places, you don’t get to vote in the Republican primary for President and the Democratic primary for Governor.
So, you pledge that you WILL vote for the person nominated by your party for ALL offices, or you just pledge that you are affiliated with the party?
How is this enforced? Do you have to show your ballot in the general to an official in the party?
I was not talking about the primaries, I was talking about in the general election, and how you were allowed to vote if you had voted in the primaries. This is obvious not just from the context of it being right after a statement about the general election, but also from the fact that I said, “From what you are saying, you are not able to split your vote, you have to go straight down the ballot for the one party.” There is only one party represented on a ballot for the primaries, even if, according to you, there are some states where you can vote on two different primaries. (Which ones are those?)
So, I ask you, if there are 15 offices on the ballot, and I voted in the republican primary, do I have to vote for the nominated person for each of those 15 offices in the general?
If so, how is this enforced?
Ah, I misread the latter half of your post. Apologies.
I think it’s quite clearly an unenforceable law, intended to dissuade, but not actually punish, certain acts. And I disagree with the premise of the law, too. But there are indeed such laws, or at least in one state that I know of.
OK, so suppose we have someone in 2016, who prefers Democrats over Republicans, but who would have been about equally happy with Clinton or Sanders as President. But they see a huge difference between the Republican candidates, and vastly prefers Kasich over Trump (even while preferring both Clinton and Sanders to either). Which primary should that person vote in? How should they vote in the general election?
And that was an unusual year, in that both parties had competitive primaries, that stayed competitive for a good long while. What if “your party” has only one clear front runner, with nobody else but fringe candidates who’ve already dropped out by the time of the primaries? Are you expected to rubber-stamp a ballot for your party’s primary anyway, just because that’s who you’re planning on eventually voting for in the general? Why?
I think it is stupid (but should be perfectly legal and acceptable) to cross party lines to “sabotage” the other. Crossing over to vote for trump if you are a democrat, is not a good idea.
However, voting for someone that you do prefer, even if you wouldn’t vote for them, seems a perfectly reasonable proposition. I debated my strategy in the 2016 primary season. I ended up voting D, mostly because there was a state rep I wanted to support, but I was strongly considering voting R in order to vote for Kasich.
I wouldn’t be voting for him in the general, most likely, but I would vastly prefer Kasich to trump.
Yeah, I think that 2016 has taught us how dangerous it is to try to sabotage the other party by voting for someone so bad that he couldn’t possibly win the general election. I was personally opposed to it even before then, because it feels dishonest to me, but it still shouldn’t actually be prohibited.
Since when don’t Democrats ever win in states like Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire, just to name a few? More Democrats than Republicans voted for McCain in states like those in 2008.
In 2008 McCain did not win a single primary until “Super Tuesday”, but because of open primaries he won the nomination.
So you think trying to sabotage the other party is dishonest, yet you hound me for my opposition to the practice? WTF? 
So you think trying to sabotage the other party is dishonest, but should be legal?
Nice set of ethics you have there.
I’m beating your pants off on this issue. Open primaries are bad, mkay?
Your opposition isn’t to people sabotaging the other party; it’s to anyone voting in the other party’s primaries for any reason. I and others have already pointed out that there are plenty of reasons to do that besides sabotage.
And yes, I think it’s dishonest, but should be legal. There are lots of things I feel that way about. Not every ethical matter should be legislated, and not every ethical matter even can be legislated (at least, not without sacrificing something of greater value).
Oh, and what’s your source for more Democrats than Republicans voting for McCain? How could you possibly even know that?
Still waiting for pkbites to answer my question: Are you or are you not a Republican?
I get why you don’t want to answer, though your other responses make it clear anyway.
Yes. What difference does it make?
Anyone who suggests that “party bosses” are the exclusive system of one party or the other is either stupid or naive (or both).
Yes. What difference does it make? The OP asked what is the best way to choose a candidate and I’ve been posting my positions on it.
Oh, wait. It means I want a clean election that is not manipulated by people who want to make sure:
*Their Democrat runs against the weakest possible Republican
*If their Democrat loses anyway the winning Republican is more like a Democrat [AKA a RINO] than the Republican who would have been the nominee had the primary not been manipulated.
Hey, be reminded that when members of my party do it (like in the case of Sheriff David Clarke which I cited previously) I also oppose it. Rush Limbaugh advocated doing it in the 2008 Presidential campaign and I called him out for it. It’s horseshit and blatantly a violation of freedom of association.
If open primaries are so great why then are they not used in a majority of the states?
When I have time I’ll dig up the cites. I know it was a decade ago but don’t you remember the controversy regarding the exit polls showing more self described Democrats voting for McCain in the primary than Republicans? McCain did not win a single primary until 'Super Tuesday" when a slew of Democrats crossed over in open primary states and voted for him.
Limbaugh had called for Republicans to do the same thing and cross over and vote in the Democratic race, to help Barack Obama win, on the premise that Clinton had a better chance of beating their candidate. “Operation Chaos” I believe. It was a slimy thing for Democrats to do and it was just as slimy for Republicans to return the favor. If someone is so goddamned worried that the other party is going to win perhaps their party should run a better candidate against them. I think I’ve been pretty balance on condemning both parties for doing this.
Answer me this: if open primaries are so great, why are they not used in a majority of the states?
I was proving the point. You think that it’s your responsibility for those of us lesser mortals that don’t fit with your peculiar standard of ethics (read non-Republicans) who might be ‘manipulating’ (your word) the election. Not only that, you actually think it’s your right to dictate whom I may vote for, once again regardless of my rationale for doing so. Sorry, bub, no joy for you.
This is nonsense. You can try to justify diluting and manipulating an election all you want. It’s still slimy and unethical. And I have also chastised Republicans who have done the same thing, right here in my home county. So you righteous indignation is a load of manure.
I answered your meaningless question, so answer my question that is more to the point of the OP: If open primaries are such a good way of choosing a candidate why do a majority of states not have them?
Hari Seldon and penultima thule have already posted, but I’ll chime in as well.
As Hari posted, in Canada, the nomination process is similar for both federal and provincial elections: the party organization in each electoral constituency (we call them “ridings” informally, for historical reasons) is responsible for nominating a candidate. It’s done by a local meeting of party members - literally, “card-carrying members” - that term has meaning here. It’s not open to the public at large. To be a voting member, you have to sign up a certain period before the nomination and pay a membership fee - typically about $10 to $25 dollars.
The vote is run entirely by the riding organization. It’s not tied to the electoral laws of the provincial or federal government, and it’s not run by the provincial or federal electoral officers.
Whoever wins the local nomination is the candidate at the general election, subject to being accepted as a candidate by the party leader, who has to sign off on it.
The reason for this approach is that parties in Canada have a definite ideological framework. They’re not meant to be simply electoral vehicles for individuals to take advantage of, which increasingly seems to be case in the US (from this outsider’s perspective). It’s considered important that parties have some control over the candidates they get, to make sure all of their candidates are roughly of the same ideology and support the same things.
There isn’t the “pre-selection” process which penultima thule mentions for Australia, and which I understand is also common in Britain. Naturally, a candidate wants to get as much support from the local party bigwigs as possible, but as far as I know, every party provides that any party member can be nominated if they get enough signatures from party members. They don’t need the approval of a local committee to stand for the nomination.
And, although incumbency is a big factor, it’s not decisive. Sitting MPs/MLAs can find that they don’t get the nomination. It’s rare, but it does happen: just last month, a sitting MP in Saskatoon was defeated for the nomination. He says he made the mistake of complacency and didn’t do enough local work as MP, opening an opportunity for others to challenge him: Brad Trost loses Tory nomination race in his Saskatoon riding. By Conservative Party rules, he can’t seek a nomination in another riding, but he could run as an independent if he wishes.
Where I disagree, respectfully, with Hari is his comment that it really doesn’t matter who gets the nomination because votes in the Commons are all party line votes. That’s true, but it doesn’t answer the question: who sets the party line? That’s a complicated question, because it’s a mixture of what the party rank-and-file say at party policy conventions; the platform that the party ran on; the views of the individual caucus members; and the views of the PM and Cabinet. Again, you have to remember the stronger ideological component of Canadian parties: because the parties have a clearer ideological identity, they will attract as candidates people who support the ideology of that party.
For example, after a lengthy policy debate internally in the Liberal Party, they came out in favour of marijuana decriminalization. There will be a vote on the bill later this year in the Commons, and you can be sure that every Liberal MP will vote for it. Part of the reason for that is that every Liberal MP, as a candidate in the general election, campaigned for decriminalisation. If they weren’t in favour of it, they wouldn’t have been in the Liberal Party. Yes, the Whip will be on the vote as well, but the details of the bill have already been debated internally in the Liberal caucus and the Cabinet. That occurs behind the scenes, but it doesn’t mean that the Liberal caucus are just dummy votes for the PM. They vote the party line because they’ve been involved in the formation of that party line, and generally support it, although they may have some disagreements on points of detail.
In short, our parliamentary system is much more ideological (in the sense of common origanisting political principles for each party) and more collectivist in approach than is the case in the US.
One other point: the power of the party leader to reject a candidate chosen locally. A party leader uses this power at their peril. There have been cases where the party leader has rejected the candidate chosen by the riding organization and parachuted in a candidate. That often does not work well, as it can alienate the local party organization and they won’t work for the parachute candidate, making it difficult for the parachute candidate to win the riding in the general.
But, the power does have a role: to maintain consistency in all candidates in supporting the party platform. For instance, fifty years ago, the issue of official bilingualism was extremely divisive. The Progressive Conservative party, after a gut-wrenching internal debate, came out in support. And then one riding nominated as their candidate a strong opponent of official bilingualism, challenging the party’s position on it. The leader of the party, Bob Stanfield, refused to sign the nomination papers, because the party had made the decision, as a party, to support official bilingualism. He wasn’t prepared to have that debate re-opened by one of the party candidates in the general election, and was prepared to lose that particular seat rather than have that happen.
That’s what I mean by the parties being both more ideological and more collective in their approach in our parliamentary system. There had been a rancorous internal debate on the party position, but once it was decided by the party, it was expected that all candidates would support it.
Different system than in the US, clearly; YMMV whether you would prefer it or not. (I think pkbites probably would, based on his comments in this thread.)
One other point: the attitude of many US posters in this thread appears to be that the public at large should be involved in choosing party candidates. That’s not the case in Canada. And, that has the effect, it seems to me, of reducing partisanship. By and large, the number of people who are involved in the nomination process is pretty low. Most people don’t identify strongly as supporters of one party or another, and there is no way to tell from their voting records what their party affiliation is, if any, because there is no public vote on nominations, unlike the US primary, where it’s a matter of public record if you voted in the Republican or Democratic primary. That means it’s not as tribal here, in my opinion; again, YMMV.
Interesting how easily you can justify abrogating the most basic right possible in a democracy. But then you’re from the party that has no problem passing discriminatory voter ID laws because they disproportionately reduce the votes of Democrats. You’d best be careful where you sling the slime, especially having elected the Swamp King himself.
Specifically how is it unethical? Because you think so?
There is no ‘majority’ of states that has any particular primary system. Why do only 14 states have closed primaries, if it’s such a good system? Are 36 states conspiring against you poor, poor Republicans? Sorry, no cigar.
As it happens, I’m lucky enough to live in a state that recently went to a nonpartisan system. So I can vote for whomever I want. Btw, I voted for Kasich because Hillary had it wrapped up and I would’ve voted for Mickey Mouse over the Orange Hairdo. Deal with it.