Daily Kos & by Kos: Open primaries? No, no and hell no (HRC GP) [View all]

[Her Sister]

EXCERPTS:

There’s no problem with the first three bullet points, though those are all based on state law and elections machinery. The Democratic Party has no control over them, which is why I now advocate for the party to wholly take over the primary process.

But the idea that it is “incomprehensible” that non-Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee is, well, incomprehensible.

There is no point to a political party unless that party can decide for itself who represents it. It costs nothing to register as a Democrat (or Republican). No one even knows which party you register under. The only reason to register as an independent is because you think you are too good or pure or uncorrupted to be a member of a party. And if that’s the case? Good for you! We are all duly impressed. So shiny and perfect!

But fuck you, you don’t get to pick our candidates.

I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room.

You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story.

Of course, Sanders’ list doesn’t include caucuses, which are an abomination of democracy and dramatically depressed turnout (and I wrote that piece before the Nebraska and Washington non-binding primaries, which had dramatically bigger turnout than the caucuses—even though they did not matter). I wonder why the guy who insisted on everyone voting would suddenly clamp down when discussing those undemocratic caucuses?

CONCLUSION:

As for open primaries? Hell no. If you want a say, join the party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/06/15/1538965/-Open-primaries-No-no-and-hell-no