No Independents voted?

[GihrenZabi]

Excuse me?

I need to pay better attention - doesn't this make PA's results even more irrelevant in the larger race?

HOW many votes is that not counted for Obama?

Christ. She's really going to drag this out even though she can't win, isn't she?

Please tell me there will be political fallout for Hillary after this is all done, whether she loses to Obama OR McCain. Please tell me there is SOME semblance of justice in this world?

[rug]

1. It makes it more relevant in a Democratic primary.

[JimGinPA]

2. Really! Why Would Independents Ever Want To Vote For A Democrat!

[GihrenZabi]

3. More relevant?

If the argument is who can carry the State?

Yet another SERIOUSLY broken aspect of our voting system. Everyone gets to vote in a primary regardless of Party affiliation seems to make more sense to me, ESPECIALLY now when independents like me can swing an election one way or the other.

Now I think the PA results are totally useless. They don't allow Hillary to claim a true victory and aren't a measure of Obama's strength in the state as he pulls tons of independents...

[rug]

5. If you did't realize it was a closed primary, I'm dubious of your opinion.

[GihrenZabi]

6. Please

That's idiotic logic. Hailing from a state where one can properly vote in either Party's primary as an independent, why would I think that PA would still have stone age voting laws?

In either case, my point is solid: without allowing independents to vote, considering the contemporary American political situation, you can't measure a candidate in any direction. Independents constitute what percentage of the vote nationwide?

[rug]

7. No, it's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of being a, oh let's say, low information voter.

As to your main point, the purpose of a primary is to choose a candidate who best reflects the values of the members. It is the strength and platform of the party that is offered in the General Election.

Otherwise, you can simply have a series of runoffs to determine the president.

Don't blame me, it started with Jefferson.

[rug]

4. Because they chose not to join a party and wait for the General Election?

[onehandle]

9. Yep. A Democratic primary should be for Democrats only, imo.

Independents elected Bush twice. I don't want them picking my nominee.

[bowens43]

11. Really? In what way?

It gives a distorted view of support for the candidates. They are not running for "President of the Democratic Party".

[frogcycle]

8. at least hypothetically

the primaries are the process whereby a political party - a thing with "members" - chooses its candidates. Why in the world would it invite non-members, and even members of a rival party, to participate in that decision-making process?


"open" primaries are complete idiocy.


If you want a say in who a party nominates, join the party. Otherwise, sit it out, see who they nominate, and cast your vote in the general.

The only thing wron with that scenario is there should be more than two viable parties.

[hayu_lol]

10. Frog...yer right on the money...

All Dem primaries should be closed to Dems only.

Part of our problem in this primary have been the caucuses and open primaries.

People want to be Indie, then let them vote for an indie candidate.