I'm amazed at all the whining there is about Independents not being able to vote in some Primaries

[brooklynite]

When I turned 18, I registered to vote and I registered as a Democrat. I ALSO signed up with the the local Party and became a Ward Committeeman. I registered voters, turned out voters, and monitored polls. I ALSO worked with other Party members to discuss issues, review and endorse candidates, and appoint Party leadership.

Is everything acceptable with the Party today? No. But the solution isn't to stamp your foot and walk away. It's to work within the Party to change things. If you can't be bothered to do something as inconsequential as registering with the Party, you don't deserve to have voice in it's decisions. DEMOCRACY means you have a right to choose among different candidates to run the Government. It DOES NOT mean you have a right to a role in the selection of those candidates.

nb - all those Social Democratic Countries that Sanders' supporters claim to love? NONE of them offer a role in candidate selection as a legal right. You have to join a Party (possibly having to pay dues) to be able to participate.

[NWCorona]

1. I would be upset if Republicans couldn't vote

This is a right we can't pick and choose

[Else You Are Mad]

51. Exactly. nt

[randome]

76. You do not have a right to vote in a Democratic primary.

Any more than you have a right to vote in a Republican primary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cheese Sandwich]

102. It's a problem because the 2 parties have an institutional monopoly on the political process.

Excluding us from primaries is in effect excluding us from the first round of voting.

The two big parties may be technically "private" organizations but they are de facto semi-governmental institutions.

[upaloopa]

2. I don't think that someone who complains about the two party system then becomes an independent

should have a right to vote in one of the party's election for the presidential nomination.

[morningfog]

15. How do you know that any voter "complained about the two party system?"

[upaloopa]

27. I don't but people do. I am not talking about a specific person.

My wife is what you call "undeclared" in CA. For her to vote in the CA primary for president she has to ask for one of the party's ballots and join that party. If she doesn't she can only vote for down ticket issues and non party specific offices.

[Sheepshank]

109. I read about it frequently on DU

and while this post came after your question, the proof is upthread #102 I think?

[NurseJackie]

75. Exactly! It's the equivalent of the "protest vote". Ineffective and self-disenfranchising.

They choose to "drop-out" of and abandon the system, then COMPLAIN that they're powerless to change the system they're no longer fully participating in (aside from voting for Nader or writing-in some other candidate's name who has NO CHANCE IN HELL of ever becoming the nominee or the winner.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. Leave it to you to claim a VOTE is "self-disenfranchising".

One of the best claims I've ever seen made here.

[Boxerfan]

3. Whining is a pretty insensitive term-considering peoples rights were violated.

That is all...

[dsc]

6. this isn't about Arizona

this is about the petition to change NY laws.

[w4rma]

18. This is about disenfranchising younger voters from the New York primary. (nt)

[dsc]

22. No, they are perfectly capable of registering as Democrats

the fact they chose not to, despite being told that to vote in that primary they had to do so, means they apparently didn't care to vote in that primary.

[w4rma]

28. It's obvious that they didn't register because they wanted a New Deal Democrat.

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

But after the DLC coup, all we have really seen are Rockefeller Republican Democrats.

[dsc]

34. get the wamublance

sorry but as a gay man in NC I have pretty much zero patience for such utter whining. If you don't like what the party is doing you vote to change it or you leave it but you don't leave it and then whine because you can't vote in it. If you can't stick and fight then too bad, so sad.

[w4rma]

62. Hey, I agree with you. And then I wonder why you want to support Clinton.

Clinton is, obviously, a horrible pick for President. Especially over Bernie Sanders.

I tell folks to register Democrat, but they all feel disenfranchised by both parties. I think, as of today, we all should know WHY they feel disenfranchised by both parties and we should be ENFRANCHISING them.

[jillan]

13. +10000

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Funny thing happened on the way to the forum

I registered as a Dem when I became a citizen. As media I prefer to be a decline to state voter. and I like my open primaries. They are far more ahem DEMOCRATIC

You know who else agrees with you? The Republican party which has more closed primaries than the dems do

[brooklynite]

9. Doesn't bother me...

...I'd prefer that they choose candidates that meet the requirements of those who choose to actually be Republicans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Here is some food for thought for you

this is not my idea by the way, but people who study partisanship. Our government relies on cooperation across the aisle.

One way to reduce this



Is precisely to open all primaries. This will force BOTH parties to moderate themselves and should lead to less hyper partisan candidates. In effect, this will lead to a less dysfunctional House and Senate.


Now as the GOP goes away and your party absorbs the business section of the R side of the house. it will fun to watch the realignment though.

[haikugal]

107. Yep! It's true!! Thanks again Nadin. Excellent info. N/T

[pantsonfire]

114. This site seems to be becoming the undemocratic underground....nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. It does this every primary, just gets worst

[Atmosk]

5. Why not let them vote?

They make up over 40% of the electorate, don't You think that their input goes a long way towards electing viable candidates?

[cherokeeprogressive]

119. I just read upthread that a VOTE, when not cast in the way they like... is "self-disenfranchising".

Whafuck?

[LonePirate]

7. Somehow during the past few months, it became frowned upon to support Dems here on DU.

[w4rma]

24. Clinton supporters have no interest in expanding the Democratic Party.

Except to gay haters who think that Reagan was just great on the AIDS epidemic. Or to warmongers who are salivating over Clinton's next potential neoconservative invasion.

[baldguy]

74. Right. That's why the Clinton campaign has been giving money to the party for voter regs & GOTV

And has been endorsing, supporting & campaigning for down-ticket candidates. (Some things Sanders has yet to do.)

And it's also why Clinton has won the endorsements HRC, LPAC and some of the largest LGBTQ orgs in the country.

[treestar]

8. Agree. The Democrats should get to pick their candidates

not a bunch of independents. If they are too good for a party, they are to good to pick its candidates.

[morningfog]

14. They aren't "too good" they are just not registered by party.

We should welcome them into the process. Engaging more voters is not a bad thing.

[rhett o rick]

20. As long as the Ruling Class controls the Democratic Party Elites then I say we

need to get the independents to help us throw the bastards out. And their minions too. The Democratic Party is to support the People not Goldman-Fucking-Sachs.

[brush]

57. Makes more sense to join the party and help to influence policy and throw them out.

Why should they have a part in candidate selection if they can be bothered in joining and working within a party?

[brush]

56. Exactly! Your post is short and to the point.

[frylock]

68. Many of them will be too good to vote for your candidate in the GE.

[Hoyt]

10. Thanks for the perspective. Unfortunately, we now have a group of people who believe if you don't

support their favorite candidate, you are a worthless member of the Establishment, or some such crud. They bashed long-time Democrats for not supporting their candidate. They even slammed Elizabeth Warren for not endorsing their guy.

[grossproffit]

52. Yep.

[IdaBriggs]

11. I live in an open primary state, but respect the closed concept

(Even though I think it foolish because it doesn't engage voters as quickly as possible)

BUT

the issues happening in Arizona have nothing to do with registration because lifelong registered Democrats were NOT able to vote, while New Dems weren't either.

That is the set up for FRAUD and was a taste of what to expect in the General Election if the mess isn't cleaned up pronto.

[brooklynite]

19. I'm not addressing the apparent attempts to limit polling site access other violations

[IdaBriggs]

35. Be wary of appearing to minimize real issues is my best advice.

The Bernie folks are justifiably freaked out because they have motivated A TON of people, and getting disenfranchised might make them think voting doesn't matter in the future.

Responsible behavior like voting is best done as a habit - once you've been doing it long enough, you do it automatically. Once you get screwed over or become convinced your vote doesn't matter, that mindset is hard to break.

Election integrity is a something I believe in and I believe people in leadership positions need to stand up for it. I appreciate Senator Sanders speaking about it (part one of a character test) but want to know what he is actually going TO DO other than talk.

I haven't heard that this issue matters to Hillary. I may have just missed it due to the people I have on ignore.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Very good post, brooklynite! Thank you!

[Herman4747]

16. It would be good to receive data on...

how attractive to Independents our candidates are. Letting Independents vote in our primaries gives some indication of this, thereby helping to guide us in the primary season in picking our most electable candidates. We recall that at least 30% of the electorate consists of Independents; in order to beat the Republicans we do need to have candidates that can attract Independents.
So for example, if one of our candidates in a primary had received just a few votes from Independents according to exit polls, we might tend to downgrade that candidate's chances in November.
Consequently, I favor permitting Independents to vote in our primaries.

[OhZone]

17. Frankly, I don't even think independents even belong on this forum.

Oh well.

[IdaBriggs]

38. Fortunately, the admins don't agree with you, newbie.

But thank you for playing.

[OhZone]

42. *un

Oh well.

BTW - Hillary's nomination is coming so -

Yeah.

[IdaBriggs]

43. Yeah, I remember when they thought that back in 08 --

You should read some of the archives from those days.

I should probably apologize for calling you out as a newbie, but your casual willingness to throw longstanding DUers LIKE MYSELF (member since 2004, Kerry Supporting Independent who converted to formal Democrat under Obama) offended me.

[OhZone]

49. Oh Sorry.

Kudos for your choices and your work.

I've just been a Democrat my whole life, and I've seen such mean things and anti-Democratic things lately.

I've actually been arguing politics in some pretty dumb places on the net since 2007, rather than here. You wouldn't believe where! haha

But real life is a better place to work for Democrats.

[IdaBriggs]

53. I was proud to be an Independent.

I voted for Dems nationally, but believe it or not, we had local people who didn't use to be crazy/stupid. I voted my first straight party ticket in 1996 as a protest over the Clinton nonsense, but of course he still got impeached. I supported Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and was shocked to be supporting a "winner" with Obama in 2008/2012.

I am a proud Bernie supporter, but will return to Independent status if Hillary gets the nomination. President Obama and his scandal free administration (not including Hillary's issues) was really the turning point for me. I lived through the Clinton administration in the 90s and to say that the self sabotage etc. was humiliating for supporters is an understatement. I have multiple issues with returning immediate family to the same job, and with the corruption issues between the Clinton Foundation, etc. I won't even pretend to defend the two of them again.

I am an FDR liberal Democrat. I will be a staunch Independent if Hillary becomes leader of the party. And if Trump gets into office, I might just become Canadian!

[OhZone]

59. All the scandals except his being a male breeder slut -

were GOP BS and lies.

It's one reason I like Team Clinton because they fought the GOP so well.

Not perfect. But well.

I love FDR too, but I just recognize you have to do what you can in your time. Maybe with Hillary vs Trump we can get the Senate AND the House. Unlike, but possible and we can move the needle to the left a little more.

Just my humble way of looking at it.

[IdaBriggs]

69. The fact that they ALWAYS shot themselves in the foot

was something I didn't appreciate and unfortunately, not ALL of the problems were GOP lies. Rather than debate *every* *single* *fake-gate* I will simply point out a few obvious facts:

1) The GOP and Faux News did not suddenly "stop lying about nonsense" because Obama was in office instead of Clinton.

2) Obama kept/keeps a SCRUPULOUSLY scandal free "clean house" which means he saves his political fire power for more than just saving his ass.

3) Obama has actually accomplished more in his tenure that was considered "impossible" even with an historically obstructionist Congress than any president in the last fifty years.

4) Hillary's stupid Benghazi and Email scandals (lying about Benghazi and ignoring national security concerns about email and bonus: involving a White House banned Blumenthal in decision making issues) combined with outright lying to Obama about Clinton Foundation donors are NOT GOP created scandals - they are stupid, UNNECESSARY BAD DECISIONS. And the fact the only scandals the GOP have been able to create during the Obama administration have a "Clinton" attached means more of the same in the disasterous event she ends up in office.

5) I want politics to be about "what decision is best for the country" not "what decision is best for the Clintons and their Foundation". That common sense ethics violation - making millions in donations for the "Foundation" while in negotiations for lucrative contracts with the State Department - is NOT more GOP nonsense. It is corruption and cronyism, and if I won't tolerate it from Cheney, I sure as hell won't tolerate it from a Clinton.

Those are my opinions, and some of the many reasons this Democrat would instantly go Independent rather than be associated with a brand that reeks of corruption.

I am an Obama Democrat. I am proud of him and his accomplishments. I know nothing about his penis. I am grateful for his service to our country.

Bill and Hillary need to stop playing politics and concentrate on golf and babysitting their grandchildren. I don't want them in Washington anymore - they embarrass me.

My opinion. Yours obviously varies.

[morningfog]

21. I have no problem welcoming independents into the Democratic primary process.

I'd prefer registered republicans not be allowed in the dem primary.

And you artificially narrowed the definition of democracy. I suppose you would have no problem with the parties choosing the nominee with no input from voters whatsoever. Why not do away with primaries altogether?

[w4rma]

25. The authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party is trying to figure out how to do just that. (nt)

[brooklynite]

29. What role do you have in the Green Party selection?

Are you aware that Jill Stein actually has competition?

[morningfog]

31. Don't know, don't care. And the point is irrelevant.

Would you support doing away with primaries?

[brooklynite]

32. As an American, I have no opinion...

As a DEMOCRAT, I think that all Party members should have a voice.

But then, I'M A DEMOCRAT.

[morningfog]

36. Your concept of small d democracy begins and ends with party affiliation.

Mine does not. If someone is affiliated with a party, they should play a role in selecting that party's nominee. If the are independent, they should be welcoming to join in the nomination process for which ever party they are compelled. It only brings more to the party.

[brooklynite]

41. ...and the way to "join in the nomination process" is to JOIN THE PARTY.

[morningfog]

45. Sure, join the party by voting for the candidate in the primary.

[Bjorn Against]

23. I am amazed at all the Democrats who are OK with disenfranchising indepenents

We have a system in which two parties have a duopoly and it is nealy impossible for a third party to even make it on the ballot in all 50 states.

Despite the fact that the two parties have so much power that no one else can even compete however, many people in those parties believe that it is acceptable to disenfranchise about 40% of the American public when it comes to determining who will be on the ballot.

Closed primaries are extremely undemocratic and I think it is disgusting that they are even legal. Everyone who is a legal voter should have the opportunity to vote the way they want to vote in both the primary and the general. Period.

[Travis_0004]

40. If they want to vote in the primary, then they can register

Its a 30 second process.

[Bjorn Against]

44. There is no reason they should have to register with a party

People have legitimate reasons for not wanting to join a party, especially when you consider the corruption that exists in the leadership of both parties. No one should be forced to associate with a corrupt party just to get the opportunity to vote.

Just because they don't join a party does not mean they should have no say in the options they have for the General Election. This is supposed to be a democracy, but a real democracy would not limit the viable options to two and then disenfranchise anyone who does not choose to join one of the two corrupt parties.

[brooklynite]

60. Do you know how few Democracies allow any voter to participate in candidate selection?

[Bjorn Against]

64. Multi party democracies are not the same as a two party system

If the choice is going to be limited to two parties then those two parties need to be very open to change from the outside. If people have many choices then it makes sense to limit selection to members of the party. A system that restricts the viable choices to two should not be closed to people who don't fit in with those two.

[jeff47]

26. I'm amazed at all the people who think you win a general election with 30% of the electorate. (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Boom.

[Dawson Leery]

33. "You have to join a Party (possibly having to pay dues) to be able to participate."

That is what most of the world does.

Letting the other party and those who are not affiliated decide your candidates is absurd.

[Bread and Circus]

37. How do you " It's to work within the Party to change things" when the Party is corrupted by money?

[jeff47]

46. You be either 1) rich or 2) old enough that the party actually cared about you. (nt)

[Gidney N Cloyd]

47. You want to vote in a party's primary, you join the party. How hard is that?

As Robin Williams once said, "Reality. What a concept."

[wilt the stilt]

48. Bernie has taught his supporters well

on how to whine. I first noticed this Bernie whining phenomena when he started to whine about his dad being underemployed and going to see "death of a salesman". Like his father was the only immigrant who had it hard. You done well Bernie. Whining is in.

The parties are private organizations. They make the rules. if you don't like the rules make your own party. I personally think all primaries should be closed.

[seabeyond]

50. The ridiculous is all of a sudden, laws and rules are not to be followed by one particular group.

At what point did they decide they do not have to follow the laws and rules and they were going to get special treatment. Want to vote in the Democratic party, educate yourself so you can vote in the Democratic party. Want to run in the Democratic party? Know how Super delegates work and do not demand they do what you tell them, because you are losing.

Entitlement.

You think that comes with the free health care, college, ice cream?

[Thinkingabout]

54. I don't think republicans should be voting in the DNC primary and Democrats should not be

voting in the GOP primary. At one time and not long ago the decision was made by party leaders but they wanted input by members of the Democratic party. I did not vote in the Republican Primary and it is about Democrats. Some states has closed primaries, other states has open primaries. Having the back and forth is not a DNC or GOP primary.

[brooklynite]

58. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party"

[Thinkingabout]

61. Sorry, typing too fast.

[TCJ70]

55. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to vote in the primaries...

...it would give both parties a better idea of how well their candidate would actually do in the general.

[w4rma]

63. I honestly don't see how Clinton can win. Every past indicator has indicated Bernie should win.

But, the oligarchs have done their best to override the people's choice. People aren't going to respond well to that in the general election. I keep saying that folks are either going to vote for economic populism or authoritarian populism.

[Peace Patriot]

65. Want their votes in the fall, enfranchise them in the spring!

Independents are now the largest voting bloc in the country. And they are often former Democrats who became disgusted with Clinton "triangulation" and even rightwingism, on all progressive issues. They saw our party fall to Wall Street deregulation, to mass incarceration, to the corrupt, murderous, failed "war on drugs," to "free trade for the rich," to Bush's war on Iraq--and more.

You don't want these voters back? You don't want them to have a say? Well, good-bye to winning in the fall!

I am a LIFELONG Democrat--50+ years as a Democratic voter, supporter and activist. My first campaign was for JFK in 1960 when I was 16. And I DON'T RECOGNIZE MY PARTY! It is NOT the party I joined so many years ago. It is NOT the "big tent" party that advocates for the majority--for workers, the poor, the elderly, students, minorities and others who have no say in the hall$ of power. And I've been tempted over the last few decades to abandon it for "independent" status as a voter. I have not done so. But I understand where many Independent voters are coming from. They are disgusted--as all real Democrats should be--that we don't really HAVE a party for the majority any more. It is now the Goldman Sachs Party!

If Democrats like you don't listen to Democrats like me, and hear what we are saying, and heed what we are saying, the Democratic Party will very possibly lose in November, and will very possibly disintegrate, win or lose, because Clinton will represent Goldman Sachs, et al, in the White House and not the rest of us 99% of the people.

Independent voters are NOT going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Most will simply stay home and despair of ever seeing their issues and needs addressed in the political arena. Young people are NOT going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Most will simply stay home and some will become activists in other ways.

That is the situation. Independents and young people are ALIENATED from the political process and from the Democratic Party. Sanders IS drawing these voters in great numbers and furthermore beats Trump by twice the margin Clinton does, and beats all Republicans, whereas Clinton loses to some of them--in recent national polls.

Do we restore the New Deal in the White House--a Sanders presidency--or do we trust that Clinton will not "triangulate" away those gains and prevent others...IF she beats Trump without Independents and without young voters? A big "if."

That's the other thing about Clinton. Her trust numbers are extremely low, while Sander's trust numbers are through the roof. She WILL "triangulate" everything away. Count on it. Independents and young people, and some of us old Democrats, know this. Democratic activists like yourself need to know what's coming--for our party, for our democracy and for the planet--if we don't make a radical change of course away from predatory corporatism right now.

[NurseJackie]

78. GMAFB! It's their own fault. Those individuals INTENTIONALLY CHOOSE to be "disenfranchised" ...

... and then complain about being "shut-out" of a system they didn't want to participate in. Thus we see the ineffectiveness of the "protest vote". If someone wants to send-a-message, then they should accept that our country (effectively) has a two-party system, and they should PARTICIPATE FULLY in the system and in the party that best (even if not fully) represents their beliefs and interests.

[randome]

80. So Democrats and Independents should be able to vote in a Democratic primary?

What about the Green Party? Shouldn't they have a say in what the Democratic party does? What about the Libertarian party? And where does it stop? Should we invite Republicans to vote in our primary, too?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[jillan]

66. My father was a registered independent his entire life. He always said he wanted the freedom

to vote for who he felt was the best candidate.

You can't really argue that.

Of course, back when he was alive the repug party hadn't gone off the deep end yet.

[frylock]

67. Wait till you see all the whining when Independents don't vote for your candidate in the GE.

[brooklynite]

70. Since most independents aren't voting for Bernie, I'll take my chances.

[frylock]

85. Who are they voting for?

[brooklynite]

86. They're not voting at this point...

...which doesn't mean they won't vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

If all the Independents WERE voting for Sanders, he wouldn't have his current deficit.

[frylock]

88. okay. Still wondering what this has to do with my original point.

In any case, good luck getting 100% of the 30% of Dems to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Wow. Michigan is an open across the board state

They did not break for your candidate that should worry you

[joshcryer]

71. The BOB movement is down 10 points from the PUMA movement.

Don't get your hopes up.

[frylock]

84. How's the 'I'm done playing this fucking game' movement looking?

[joshcryer]

94. 6%, it was 17% in 2008.

Unsurprising because in 2008 it was likely fueled by racism.

Should narrow even more as Trumps sexist crap continues (his attacks on Cruz' wife are sure to help him with the women vote).

[gordianot]

83. I really think that they do not want independents and they do not want their vote.

How this can be is astounding. It appears there is some sort of exclusive Country Club movement going on. My current theory is that the Democratic Party is moving into the well funded center right spectrum abandoned by Republicans as they spin hard right into Fascism. Part of me understands why Independents are hated think of all the campaign money getting their vote. A smaller exclusive umbrella seems counter intuitive "don't need those Independents this is an exclusive club for true Democrats".

[gollygee]

72. Two things

First, if they have open primaries, then they have open primaries. That's the law and people should be able to vote as the law allows them to.

Second, the Voting Rights Act was gutted specifically to aid the Republican Party in general elections. They are suppressing the minority vote and newer voters, and both support Democrats over Republicans. Tuesday was just a test run. This is a big problem.

[Octafish]

73. That's about as undemocratic position as is possible to take.

Congratulations.

[livetohike]

77. As if this was something new in 2016. Same with the delegate and

Super delegate system. Amazing how clueless some people are.

[gollygee]

79. This is new

http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

Election officials said they reduced the number of polling sites to save money—an ill-conceived decision that severely inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of voters. Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This type of change would very likely have been blocked since minorities make up 40 percent of Maricopa County’s population and reducing the number of polling places would have left minority voters worse off. Section 5 blocked 22 voting changes from taking effect in Arizona since the state was covered under the VRA in 1975 for discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters.

But after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA in 2013, Arizona could make election changes without federal oversight. The long lines in Maricopa County last night were the latest example of the disastrous consequences of that decision.

[gordianot]

81. After being a Democratic member for more than 40 years there are aspects I never realized.

That is until this election. This is easily the most honest admission / testimonial I have seen in a long time. Just yesterday I learned on DU there are "true Democrats" and how exclusive it is to be a member of that club. Again thank you for your clarity.

[Orsino]

82. The duopoly in politics does leave independents out.

Sure, they can in theory start their own parties, but the two-party stranglehold on state ballots would take decades to break.

[brooklynite]

87. Nobody forces you to become an Independent.

You become an Independent when you choose not to affiliate with ANY of the existing Parties. That's your right, but lack of affiliation means you shouldn't have a further voice in their decisions.

[Orsino]

91. You also become an independent when no existing party wins your loyalty.

The duopoly further trims that list of effective parties to two.

Open primaries do encourage independents to get involved early in a cycle, in ways that closed primaries don't.

[brooklynite]

92. IOW, they have to do the job for you...

...find the Party that's closest to your vision and work to change it.

[Orsino]

93. Well, they ought to do A job, anyway.

That job being the garnering of votes, one would hope. Parties do that by being responsive to more and voters' perceived needs.

Or not. American turnout isn't low only because voters are uniquely lazy or entitled.

[brooklynite]

89. Or, they can join an existing Party and work to form it in their own image.

[LisaM]

103. It's not a duopoly. Many states include Green and Libertarian, for example.

Arizona included Green on their ballots. The point being made is that the primaries are a chance for the parties to select their candidates. "Independent" is not a party (there may have been parties labeled than in the past; I don't think there is one now, at least not a national one). Candidates are perfectly welcome to run for presidents as an Independent, and many have.

One issue not being addressed is that when these people jump party or temporarily declare a party - what about the other races and candidates on the ballot? Do these voters research and thoughtfully cast votes on those, too? I know that in our 2008 caucuses, one of the tasks set forth was to vote on our district Democratic party's planks for the state convention, and this was something people in my precinct actually refused to do. Shame on the people running the caucus for not forcing it, but they didn't, and we skipped that whole portion of the agenda. And this is one of the problems with people registering as Democrats so they can vote for one candidate. Party politics means that you faithfully attend to the business of the party as a whole.

[Orsino]

117. It's a duopoly. n/t

[LisaM]

120. Well, Arizona had three parties on the ballot

so if two makes three, okay. The purpose of the primary is for parties to select candidates. Now people who don't identify with those parties want to join in the selection. Good people think differently on this - I think people who belong to a party should get to choose the candidate. Anyone who qualifies can get on the ballot as an independent!

[Prism]

90. We should steer the Titanic into the iceburg

Frankly, I don't get why people are upset. Anyone ticked at the Democratic Party should let them do precisely as they are. And then when it sinks, well, new parties for everyone!

At this point, I'm just enjoying the show. Please, continue alienating young voters. Not like they'll ever be in charge of anything.

[noamnety]

95. We all have our own lens. I am a veteran.

I feel I have earned the right to help decide who sends my fellow soldiers into war at least as much as someone who has checked a box on a form.

Luckily in my state I do have that right.

[brooklynite]

96. You have the right as a CITIZEN to choose that person in the General Election...

[noamnety]

97. and in my state I have the right to help choose a nominee.

I'm sorry you are angry that I have that right.

But I have it all the same.

[MoonRiver]

99. And Democrats should trust you will choose the Democrat because...

[noamnety]

104. I don't know why a checked box changes the answer to that question.

If I had to check a box on a registration form to vote in the primary, I would do it.

And what exactly would that prove to you? It still wouldn't tell you who I'd vote for in the GE.

What it would do is make my voting preference public, which is problematic for many people, including teachers whose students' parents can get a little weird if they don't have a teacher whose politics they agree with. It's problematic for women in fundie/abusive households who might want to vote differently than their husbands. It's a problem for journalists who don't want to publicly declare a party preference. It's a problem for people living in states with at-will employment, where a right wing boss can fire a person for being a democrat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. I do n my state too

[aikoaiko]

98. And yet there are open primaries and it works fine.

The people can expect it if they (a majority) wish it.

[Xyzse]

100. I've been registered Independent for most of my life except for this Primary Season.

I switched to (D) just so that I can vote on the primary elections this year.

I dislike being tribalistic, and as such have enjoyed being able to choose between Democrats, Independents and Republicans dependent on what they stand for.

I considered it as a means to look at each candidate as an individual rather than allowing the (D)(I)(R) after their names sway my judgment. I mean, I can't always subscribe to everything one party says, as such I thought it was more appropriate to be an Independent more than anything else, and it allows me to get along with any one.

Stating that, I must admit that since I've been voting back in 2000, each consecutive election shows the Republicans veering further and further towards the cliff of insanity. I thought at around 2012 they already fell off, but I was wrong at figuring out how low they could go.

Hence, I have been voting for mostly Democrats and Independents since 2004. I learned my lesson early, but was unwilling to place the (D) next to my name, as I could not fully subscribe to what they tend to promote. I realized that I was further to the left in many instances, and in some few cases I have found common ground with those to the right. Before moving to DU, I was part of a site called commongroundcommonsense.org which promoted looking for views and values that we could find in common. As such the way I speak in here and everywhere else, I tend to look at what I can agree in, within someone's point of view while asserting my own, trying to show perhaps another way of viewing matters.

I am not always successful in that.

Back to this...
I've always wished I could vote on primaries as an Independent, however, for me, none have made me want to take the plunge and do so till now.

Someone suggested allowing semi-closed primaries where Independents are allowed to vote in Democratic or Republican primaries, though not allowing the opposing parties to vote for each other. I think that may be a fair enough method.

I tend to believe the more people vote the better, so... I can understand the Independents wanting to have their voices heard.

[NobodyHere]

101. If they have to help pay for it.

They should be able to vote.

[bkkyosemite]

105. Every citizen of the United States when gettting their license or when turning 18 should

be registered automatically and vote for whoever they damn well please without putting down a party. Independents are citizens of the United States and should be able to vote any way any one else can. This party crap has got to stop. Everyone should vote for the person they think will be the best to serve the public.

[NowSam]

106. Wow.

Being denied the right to vote is downright unAmerican and I cannot understand how any sane person could be okay with what has happened- most recently in AZ- but also in other places. The Dems were supposed to be the party of inclusion.

[Gothmog]

108. If you want to be the nominee then you need to get the support of party members

[Armstead]

112. So I guess voter access joins "free stuff" and otehr "ponies" under the bus

[Logical]

113. LOL, so you whine about it! Classic! nt

[cosmicone]

116. Bernie is against imports

except for imported voters.

[LWolf]

121. Please provide a link to "whining."

As defined by:

1. to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.:
The puppies were whining from hunger.

2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way:
He is always whining about his problems.

I assumed you meant #2. If you remove uneasiness or discontent from the discussion of politics, what is left?