HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Interesting: List of open...

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 07:12 PM

 

Interesting: List of open primary states

Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:57 PM - Edit history (4)

Here is a list of open-primary states with the number of their electoral votes as a very rough gauge of their influence on the outcome (total 169 unless I made a mistake adding).

South Carolina would be the first one voting next year.

Alabama (9)
Arkansas (6)
Arizona (11)
Georgia (16)
Illinois (20)
Massachusetts (11) (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan (16)
Mississippi (6)
Missouri (10)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
South Carolina (9)
Tennessee (11)
Vermont (3)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)

Open, but not for presidential elections:

Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)

EDIT: To add Illinois and correct total.

EDIT II: To note that Wikipedia sucks and point you to a more complete list that includes Ohio, Texas and Louisiana, and thus puts it close to half of the total electoral votes. Rules vary, however.

https://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-states-with-open-and-closed-primaries/

EDIT 3: To apologize as I just saw that the link is a GOP site, but the info seems good.

25 replies, 4367 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Interesting: List of open primary states (Original post)
JackRiddler Dec 2015 OP
awake Dec 2015 #1
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #6
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #2
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #4
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #7
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #8
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #10
tritsofme Dec 2015 #3
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #5
tritsofme Dec 2015 #9
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #11
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #12
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #13
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #14
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15
tritsofme Dec 2015 #16
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #17
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #18
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #19
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #20
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #22
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #23
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #24
JackRiddler Dec 2015 #25
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #21

Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 08:13 PM

1. Who do you think we should vote for?

Someone to mess the other side up or the Dem that we want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:33 PM

6. The Dem that you want, of course.

 

There's nothing you can do to mess up the other side more than is already the case.

And are we going to pretend that the Bush crime family with its history of genocide-level violence upon the world is going to be preferable to Trump, who merely promises more of what they have already achieved? Perhaps Mr. Plan B, Rubio, as if he's not promising nuclear confrontation with Russia and Iran along with the rest of those jokers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 08:19 PM

2. Open primaries have little effect with no incumbent.

 

2008 was a notable exception after McCain locked up the nomination on the GOP side while the Democrats spent weeks longer engaged in one of the most contentious primary battles in memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:27 PM

4. You have an interesting recollection of the history.

 

It's hard to imagine a more successful primary season for the Democratic party than the one in 2008. More than 35 million people were mobilized to participate. All the interest was focused on Obama and Clinton. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, it was pure crickets as an old man (in the sense of old, old ideas) plodded to a predetermined result. Lesson: Democracy (as imperfect as it was) is not to be feared!

As for your platitude about the effect of open primaries, I guess we'll see! Prior history does not guarantee future results, as the Wall Streeters say...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:41 PM

7. You failed to understand my post.

 

While the 2008 primary season was the most contentious Democratic primary in recent memory, in no way did I claim it to be bad thing.

Instead, the point was to note a minor effect from Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" in a few open primaries after McCain locked up the GOP nomination.

There was a minor effect during 2012 with an incumbent Democratic president due to the "Operation Hilarity" promoted by Markos Moulitsas.

In both cases, the effect was minor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:46 PM

8. Maybe it's your choice of adjectives?

 

Contentious is usually negatively connotated, and there are plenty of people who say it's a bad thing in primaries.

Perhaps you should have gone with "vibrant," or "with high participation," or interesting and enthusiastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 11:33 PM

10. Contentious is the best way to describe a primary season that went all the way into June and the...

 

Puerto Rico primary.

Mathematically, there was still a good shot for Hillary in May.

I can think of no other word to describe the primaries than contentious, and it was the contentious nature of that season which insured Barack Obama would win the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 08:36 PM

3. Illinois has an open primary too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:31 PM

5. That's a big one...

 

I guess Wikipedia sucks!

Illinois: "Must vote in primary of same party as last primary vote. Loosely enforced."

https://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-states-with-open-and-closed-primaries/

I have no idea what that means. Sounds like it's only "open" until you've voted once and then you're stuck? Explain it to me. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:48 PM

9. That description definitely isn't correct.

You are able to choose a Democratic, Republican, or non-partisan ballot in each primary election, your choice isn't limited by the last election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 11:36 PM

11. Ah, but your vote can be invalidated based upon a signature on a petition in Illinois.

 

If somebody signs a petition for a Green candidate, for examplethey have contractually agreed to vote in the Green primary for the candidate they signed the petition for.

If they skip over the to Democratic primary, their vote cn be challenged and if challenged, their vote can be invalidated and they can be subjected to a criminal penalty.

This is why I would only ever sign a petition for somebody I planned to vote for when I lived in Illinois.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:33 AM

12. Is the HRC campaign already planning this move?

 

You seem very knowledgeable about it! Is it a worry at the HRC HQs? Hmmmmmmm...

Independent voters in primaries! Beware! Your vote may be invalidated and subject you to a criminal penalty!!!



God forbid a candidate should attract independents or (brrrrrrr!) non-voters! They're probably Trump racists!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:42 AM

13. Oddly enough, this was how Obama was able to become of state Senator in Illinois.

 

He was able to challenge signatures of his opponents because many of those who signed had previously signed other petitions, thus invalidating their signatures on the petitions of his opponent and insuring she was unable to meet the requirements for a spot in the Democratic Primary for State Senator.

BTW, ALL voters in Illinois are independent voters. Intentions are only solidified when a) a petition is signed or b) a party declaration is made during a primary. One does not register as a member of a party in Illinois.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:46 AM

14. That Obama, guess he plays/played hardball.

 

A state senate election, eh? Challenging ballot petition signatures. Surely he would have been finished, if someone else had been on the ballot? No? Anyway, I guess it would be a bigger job on votes in a presidential primary, but HRC's got the money, no? And criminal penalties ... brrrrr!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:48 AM

15. You go into an election with the rules and laws of the state.

 

All must abide by those rules and laws or else be disqualified.

Disqualified candidates do not belong on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:48 AM

16. Interesting. I don't believe I've ever signed such a petition.

Granted I don't spend a ton of time checking out other ballots, but I've never heard that stipulation. It is certainly not well publicized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:00 AM

17. The primaries use delegates, not electors.

And there are many more delegates than electors. The numbers don't really apply to the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:19 AM

18. Thank you for kicking this important thread!

 

And thanks for the studious (if false) reading of what I actually wrote in the OP, which (as you advise post-facto) does not in any way suggest that delegates are electors, or vice-versa. Hooray! Thanks as well for the blindingly brilliant if irrelevant comment, and do make sure to keep kicking this important thread! I can hardly wait what else you have to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:27 AM

19. I don't get what you're saying.

You know what you're posting is wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:34 AM

20. What I'm posting isn't wrong.

 

If you can't read English, it's not my problem.

But please do reply to keep this important thread kicked. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:39 AM

22. It's clearly wrong. Electors have no role in the primary.

"Here is a list of open-primary states with the number of their electoral votes as a very rough gauge of their influence on the outcome (total 169 unless I made a mistake adding)."

Electors have no influence on the outcome of open primary's. Feel free to explain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:43 AM

23. Very good copy-paste.

 

Now read it again. Slooowly perhaps? Eventually the words may mean something. Perhaps you need to read other stuff too, literature and what not, that has helped others in cases not unlike yours. Or maybe try unbolding the words you bolded (and underlined, too!) and bolding the ones you didn't. Thanks again for the important kick to an important thread. You brighten my day, light up my life, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 01:46 AM

24. Your post isn't saying what you think it is.

Feel free to explain it. It is clearly wrong. Electors have no role in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 02:18 AM

25. Yes! Exactly!

 

Electors have no role in the primary! Good thing I never wrote this, and it is only some kind of strange delusion on your part that I did! Hooray!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Reply to this thread