It makes no sense at all to me. Today in Michigan, with the DEMS pretty much a non-issue, the GOP can have its primary affected by voters who don’t affiliate with them at all. If I’m an Obama supporter, for example, I can go vote for Fred Thompson just for a lark, because it doesn’t hurt my candidate any, but it compromises the party process.
It would be like if the Dopers had a convention to see what we all agreed upon, but “oh, by the way you don’t have to subscribe to the board or even know what it is” to participate. With that, how could we then say “This is what Dopers want!”?
A lot of states haven’t concluded that it’s any of their business what party you’re affiliated with. So when you register to vote, they don’t ask you that.
So when it’s primary time, they can’t tell you which primary you have to participate in, because they haven’t made it their business to know.
Therefore ‘open’ is the only kind of primary they can have.
I still think it is ridiculous. Registered Democrats should get to nominate the Democratic candidate, and the same holds true for the Republicans. Registered independants should have to wait until the general election to choose.
I agree. The purpose of a primary is to allow political parties to choose the candidate who will represent the party and its principles. I don’t see why people who have not declared their membership in the party have any right to cast a vote that will determine my party’s candidate. Let independents have their own primary if they want, and nominate their own candidate. But they have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of a political party with which they have no affiliation.
The implication of this is that, in states that don’t ask you for your party affiliation, nobody should have the right to participate in a primary.
That seems kinda stupid.
This logic would apply to caucuses too, unless a party keeps its own membership rolls. Though in that instance, a person simply could join both parties, just to keep his options open.
Why is that stupid? Not asking for an affiliation is not the same as preventing affiliation. If you don’t choose to affiliate with my party, why should you choose our candidate?
For the same reason I pay to educate your children, when I have none. The legislature decided it was good public policy to insure free and fair elections.
In the case of a state-run primary, it certainly is. If the state voter registration form doesn’t have a place to indicate one’s party affiliation, I can still write it on the form, but then what? The state’s computers won’t have a field to record my party affiliation. As far as they’re concerned, nobody in the state will have a party affiliation. Period.
Even if we posit that we’re talking about either a caucus or a party-run primary, how do I make that choice to affiliate?
I call myself a Democrat, and I contribute money to the campaigns of Dem politicians I support, but I don’t have a card that says I’m an official member of the Democratic Party.
Back when I was still a Republican and living in Virginia, I participated in the local GOP caucuses one year; these caucuses were the first step towards choosing Virginia’s national GOP convention delegates. But they didn’t have my name on a list either, saying I was one of theirs. I think I may have had to contribute $10 to the local party to participate in the caucus, but I can’t remember for sure.
ETA: If the parties themselves don’t provide a way of affiliating in advance of the caucus or primary, then a caucus or a party-run primary is in fact open.
BTW, I wholeheartedly believe that a party has the right to control its own nominating process. That’s not the part I think is stupid. But aside from a state’s willingness to ask for and record one’s party affiliation, which isn’t universal, there’s no mechanism in place for defining party affiliation ahead of time.
So if you’re saying that one must be affiliated with a party ahead of the primary or caucus to participate in it, then you’re saying that no one at all would be eligible to select delegates in states that don’t record voters’ party affiliations.
That consequence, that nobody would be in a position to choose delegates for either party, is what I would regard as stupid. A problematic but semi-representative means of choosing delegates is better than no way to do so at all.
Well, there’s your problem, since that is not what I am saying. I fundamentally disagree with open elections, and to the extent that states facilitate them by not requiring party affiliation, I disagree with that as well. So I would clarify my point by saying that states should require party affiliation (or a declaration of Indepenpendent or Unaffiliated), and limit voting in the primary based on that affiliation. I though it was obvious that I believed in both. I was mistaken.
Then you and your party can pick up the tab for the cost of running your private nomination party. As others have said. And your assertion that the state pays for it as a decision on it’s part to hold a better election is equally valid as a reason for you to accept whomever wants to vote in your primary if that’s what the state thinks is a “good public policy to insure free and fair elections.”
There is one point to consider as a difference between an “open” primary and the theoretically “open” nature of an otherwise closed primary. In an “open” primary, especially in states where party affiliation isn’t required for registration, you are never officially attached to a party in an official governmental record. This makes a BIG difference, trust me. If you are in a state that is traditionally dominated by a particular party, it’s quite intimidating to have to check the box for the opposite party when registering to vote. So, yeah, you can always re-register and switch affiliation any time you want, but by doing so you become “attached” to that party officially, something you may not want to do.
