What Do You Think Of Closed Primaries?

[Dinger]

Poll question: What Do You Think Of Closed Primaries?

Wow, can't believe I just started two threads here. Oh well, I'll see where this goes.

[MrSlayer]

1. They all should be closed in my opinion.

Why should people who do not belong to our party get to vote in our primaries? That's how we end up with that "Operation Chaos" bullshit.

[NewHampshireDem]

2. Coming from New Hampshire

I want to begin by saying that there is absolutely no way, no way, no way, that NH would ever go for closed primaries. Say what you will about that, but it's fact. If 'closed primaries' becomes associated with Democrats and is floated in NH, it would be a huge setback for the party.

That said, I myself oppose closed primaries. I do think independents and party-switchers have a role to play in the process. In 2004, I know several moderate 'Republicans' who backed either Edwards or Clark. In 2000, I voted for McCain in the Republican primary myself--not because I had any intention of voting for him, but because I thought he'd make the best president out of the Republicans who were running.

I could be wrong, but I think we're voting for the President of the United States during primaries, not for the President of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

[DrDan]

7. but do you think people voting for another party's candidate

votes for the person they feel would best fill a position . . .

or for the person they feel their party's candidate can most easily defeat?

[NewHampshireDem]

12. I wouldn't create the rules out of fear

But out of the belief that, yes, people would vote for the better candidate.

I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh actually has that much power. I do believe that he is a master at making something small (like his talent) and magnifying it until it looks like a 'movement' because it strokes his ego. (I mean, come on ... mister dodged-the-draft-with-a-pimple-on-his-ass is calling himself the Commander in Chief of Operation Chaos ... what a loser.) So I don't buy the whole primary-disruption idea at all.

And I think it is important to remember that in the northeast, people are much more fluid about party affiliation. Even the Blue states have had Red governors recently, for instance.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I think the effects of "weakening the opposition" are negligable

People always talk about it but honestly I think it's over hyped. Since the advent of the modern primary system in 1972 I don't think anyone has ever seriously made a case that someone was nominated due to people trying to influence the opponent's primary.

[DrDan]

18. but is that because of closed primaries

or because it is more talk than action on the part of cross-over voting?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Most states have open contests

In particular, Iowa and New Hampshire do and those are the states where the other party could really fuck with the process to nominate a weaker candidate. The fact is that it's very hard to coordinate an effort to get the other party to nominate a weaker candidate. Also, it's often hard to tell who will be weaker among the candidates that have a chance. If the Republicans could dilute the primary so that they could run against Mike Gravel I'm sure they would. But there are varying thoughts about whether they would rather run against Hillary or Obama.

[BalancedGoat]

26. Iowa isn't exactly open.

But they do have same-day registration, which makes it close enough.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

4. Why are you spamming this bullshit?

It's very annoying.

[gsaguyCLW54]

8. Whatever do you mean?

[Adelante]

11. I mean, you going from thread to thread posting the same off topic bullshit

Are you obsessed with race or what?

[DrDan]

9. oh good heavens . . . get a life

[newmajority]

5. "closed primary" is an illusion.

If thousands of Dildoheads can change party registration at will to tamper with the vote, and then change it back the next day, then there was nothing accomplished by "closing" the primary. Except preventing crossover votes from independents.

And if the primary is done by electro-fraud machines, where there is no way to ever know the true results, then it is even less relevant.

[sniffa]

6. I'm against

As a resident of a semi-open Primary state all my life, this is my preference. I'm against closed, but supportive of semi-open. I don't have much feeling for open Primaries. We can bemoan Repubs voting in our primaries to sway our vote, but we do that as well. That's a draw.

I envy the Caucuses though - that's an unknown world to me, and it seems like an awesome way to do it.

[Solon]

10. I like open primaries, I'd never be able to vote for the candidate I wanted if it were closed...

I'd loathe having to join a political party when I barely agree with it, but like some of its candidates, like Kucinich.

[BalancedGoat]

13. Fine as long as they have same day registration.

I had forgotten that I hadn't joined a party before I went to caucus.

That aside, I think that the long lines of young people joining the party at my caucus site should be enough to convince anyone.

[NewHampshireDem]

14. I'm not sure that I understand

If I've been registered as an independent, and voted democrat for years, I can't participate, but if I wake up the day of the caucus and decide to vote for the first time in my life, I can?

[BalancedGoat]

23. Don't get me wrong.

I prefer an open primary to any other option. A closed primary with same day registration is acceptable to me because any who wants to participate can suck it up and sign up with the party of the candidate of their choice. The point of view that a primary is a party function and you should be a member of the party to participate does hold some validity. A closed primary that requires you to be registered in advance makes it more difficult for new voters to get involved in the process.

The ease with which an open primary or same day registration allow new participant to join the process outweighs the risk of people maliciously disrupting the process in my opinion.

[bigwillq]

15. Anyone can switch

to either party so I don't see much difference whether it's open or closed.

Maybe they should change the rule where you can change parties but you cannot vote in a primary until the next election cycle..something like that..not really sure how it would work but with the way the rules are now, anyone can switch and still be able to vote.

I'm open to open up new ideas.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Closed primaries usually have a deadline by which you have to change parties

[bigwillq]

20. Yes, I am aware of that.

Thanks. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

19. I favor open primaries...

People are going to be more likely to vote for our nominee if they have a say in who it is. Also people who claim that they have more right to choose the nominee because they've worked for the party for years need to realize that not everybody who registers Democratic has done that same amount of work. Some Independents have worked harder for the Democratic Party than some Democrats have. When party registration is merely checking a box, there's really not a reason to exclude Independents and Republicans.

[MadBadger]

21. I like Open primaries. Having a candidate that does better with Indies is ideal.

[ccharles000]

22. If you want to help pick the Democratic nominee ..

register Democrat.

[terrell9584]

24. Opposed

Because I live in the South, where every rural county is still under the control of the Democratic Party, and where voting in a Republican Primary denies you your voice for local offices, and because many of your higher population counties are under Republican control, and as such, voting in a Democratic primary denies you your voice in local offices, and in some areas, what neighborhood you live in determining which primary elects your local candidates.

Closed primaries only work in true two party systems and we don't have that in the South.

[housewolf]

27. Primaries are for the party members to decide who the party's nominee will be

While it _nice_ for Dem-leaning independents and Repub-leaning independents to add their input (nice for them, the independents), I think it's wrong.

Independents get to choose amongst the nominees all those parties who put up a nominee, and that's as it should be. But if they want to particiapte in who a party selects as their nominee, they should be registered as a member of the party. And I think there should be a deadline for registering, something like 2 or 3 weeks.

I think this business of cross-party voting for nominees is wrong, in my opinion, and distorts the process.