Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(507 posts)
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 10:40 PM Mar 2016

Poll: Are open presidential primaries more democratic? [View all]

Comment on why you voted Yes or No and please refrain from negative comments about Sanders or Clinton, that detract from a constructive discussion.

62 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
43 (69%)
19 (31%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
119 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats should decide Democratic nominee.. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #1
That wasn't the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #3
I already voted. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #8
And that wasn't the question either. morningfog Mar 2016 #9
Im unorthodox. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #14
Again, not the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #20
your queation is a push poll and doesn't deserve any relply upaloopa Mar 2016 #41
It's not my question. morningfog Mar 2016 #57
I Agree-If They Want to Run Against Democrats Let Them Start a 3rd Party Stallion Mar 2016 #10
absolutely - register for the party if you want to vote for the party's nominee DrDan Mar 2016 #110
Allowing People To Vote As They See Fit Optimizes The Quality of The General Election Candidates CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #118
Yes, by definition, they are. morningfog Mar 2016 #2
Bingo. I think you have diagnosed poster #1 accurately. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #4
But teabagging the polls is undemocratic. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #12
Teabagging the polls....what does that mean? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #16
Like Republicans crossing party lines to exploit the turnout. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #19
Couldn't you argue the opposite? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #25
So we'll be all choosing from the bottom of the barrel? JaneyVee Mar 2016 #30
or they cancel eath other out....and we're left with our current system... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #75
However one votes, for whatever reason is an act of democracy. morningfog Mar 2016 #17
They can do that in the general election. JaneyVee Mar 2016 #24
"allegedly rampant"....it sounds like fear is controlling your opinion? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #26
Republicans cant be trusted. See: Arizona 2016 JaneyVee Mar 2016 #33
Normally we run Dems against Dems. But this year and independent puts on a Dem hat and calls all upaloopa Mar 2016 #47
How dare a candidate bring independent voters into the Democrstic party! morningfog Mar 2016 #62
If you want to register to vote in a closed primary you can it is simple just follow the rules upaloopa Mar 2016 #68
I never said otherwise. This thread is about whether morningfog Mar 2016 #72
Yeah, but more democratic isn't necessarily better in a party primary. Orsino Mar 2016 #97
No. Dawson Leery Mar 2016 #5
If you're going to comment, don't just echo your vote please nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #11
Primaries aren't really about "democracy", per se. Codeine Mar 2016 #6
THIS ^^^^ eom radical noodle Mar 2016 #40
"Joe Dipshit"...refrain from the name calling, thank you. nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #42
Joe's cool. We go way back. Codeine Mar 2016 #46
The 2 big political parties have an institutional monopoly on the political process. Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #76
I don't really buy the notion of "independents". Codeine Mar 2016 #83
I changed my registration from Dem to independent because we got a new boss at work and he hated Dem Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #84
YEP!!!!! bravenak Mar 2016 #80
This is the correct answer. And I say fuck Joe Dipshit. PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #109
I think all democratic primaries should be closed... BooScout Mar 2016 #7
What if only registered independents could? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #13
Nope... BooScout Mar 2016 #35
Who was she and who replaced her? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #45
That wasn't the question. morningfog Mar 2016 #18
Open primaries are more democratic hellofromreddit Mar 2016 #15
All They Would Have to Do is Register as a Democrat Stallion Mar 2016 #21
The party left me - I didn't leave the party FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #31
Neither the World Nor the Democratic Party Revolves Around You Stallion Mar 2016 #38
The curse of our Two-Party system beating down any independent candidate... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #49
They will not win with out independents FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #56
Many thousands of voters have been turned away from the polls due to clerical errors. hellofromreddit Mar 2016 #37
In NY, that would have been the first Friday in October of last year, in order to vote in the Karma13612 Mar 2016 #58
how about caucuses JI7 Mar 2016 #22
That's all a whole different story, the coin tosses in IOWA, for another poll nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #28
Yes, they are, absolutely. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #23
Exactly! nt redwitch Mar 2016 #34
What would that restriction look like? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #51
Voting records. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #59
So perhaps a waiting period if you voted for a party and switched next election nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #73
That isn't what I was suggesting. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #91
For primaries in MO (presidential and state offices), you get a republican or Democratic ballot loyalsister Mar 2016 #104
Yes, I agree, that's a good idea. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #111
Geez ... another No Shit Sherlock moment FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #27
The vote doesn't look that way.....nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #32
I voted no radical noodle Mar 2016 #29
What if that someone doesn't want to screw around with the election? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #36
There's no way to weed out those who do from those who don't radical noodle Mar 2016 #44
Alaska also has a closed caucus, Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #43
Are you aware that in Karma13612 Mar 2016 #50
Any new yorkers here to weigh in? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #52
Former New Yorker here. I weighed in against the New York rule -- see post #99. Jim Lane Mar 2016 #100
As far as I'm concerned, this is a Party issue radical noodle Mar 2016 #64
They do a few things nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #39
They're not supposed to be. NuclearDem Mar 2016 #48
Precisely. Codeine Mar 2016 #55
Exactly. Primaries are one of the privileges of membership. NuclearDem Mar 2016 #61
They best start doing that ASAP, hopefully Clinton (if she wins) will reach out effectively nt. blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #65
From a simple google search.... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #60
I think that has less to do with party membership NuclearDem Mar 2016 #69
This message was self-deleted by its author imari362 Mar 2016 #53
I voted "pass" Dem2 Mar 2016 #54
When do they have to decide which side? nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #63
At the polling station Dem2 Mar 2016 #66
That exactly what I envision to be an open primary...nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #67
Some states allow party crossover Dem2 Mar 2016 #81
I'm confused... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #87
IF they are a registered independant Dem2 Mar 2016 #93
I'm registered independent Hydra Mar 2016 #70
We have a similar system in CA..."modified closed primary" nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #71
Democracy means you can start a party and run it how you want, if you don't like how others do. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #74
Though it has largely always been two-party system... blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #77
It doesn't have to be a 2-party system. It's not written into the Constitution or anything. CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #78
Social Democratic Party....nt blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #79
Of course they are. Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #82
The most democratic thing you can do is let people vote for whomever they want onecaliberal Mar 2016 #85
people who CHOOSE to be independent have self-selected themselves out of political party primaries. msongs Mar 2016 #86
People should be able to vote for whomever they want to. PERIOD! pinebox Mar 2016 #88
^^THIS^^ CharlotteVale Mar 2016 #116
Democracy is about the people, not the party. senz Mar 2016 #89
Yes Rebkeh Mar 2016 #90
More people voting = more democratic. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #92
I think so. So, yes. (nt) bigwillq Mar 2016 #94
In my state I am glad only registered Democrats can vote in my primary. hrmjustin Mar 2016 #95
I'm not always happy about it, but yes. Vinca Mar 2016 #96
Primaries are meant to pick the nominee of a specific party. KitSileya Mar 2016 #98
On the main question, I'm undecided, but I will speak against the extremely closed NY primary Jim Lane Mar 2016 #99
No! As long as there are vote machines and tabulators owned by private companies bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #101
Not when votes are being suppresed and it's impossible to trust a bought out party not to block a Zira Mar 2016 #102
Should football writers join baseball writers in voting for inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame? LonePirate Mar 2016 #103
Who gets into the Hall of Fame does not have major implications for the welfare Time for change Mar 2016 #115
If Independents truly cared about the welfare of our country, why aren't they Dems already? LonePirate Mar 2016 #117
Certainly more democratic, because it give more people a voice. Maedhros Mar 2016 #105
No. LuvLoogie Mar 2016 #106
I am an indepdent who has voted straight Democrat for decades pdsimdars Mar 2016 #107
I am also - and I accept and respect the fact that I cannot vote in our primary DrDan Mar 2016 #112
Democrats should decide Democratic nominee.. workinclasszero Mar 2016 #108
They are about influencing unaffiliated voters. One_Life_To_Give Mar 2016 #113
Why should independent voters be disenfranchised Time for change Mar 2016 #114
Just cut out the middle man DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #119
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Poll: Are open presidenti...»Reply #0