How do you guys feel about open primaries?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Just registered to vote in Colorado. Pretty tough choice between Republican and Unaffiliated. I went with Unaffiliated precluding me from voting in the primaries here, which I think is pretty crappy. California politics is a huge mess, but one thing I think they finally got right is completely open primaries. People of any party affiliation, or declined to state, can request whichever primary ballot they want and vote in that primary.

Gives moderates and middle of the road types a voice in the primaries instead of letting the rabid faction at either end of the political spectrum control the whole show up until the general.

Anyway, I just gave up my right to participate in the primaries here because this state is stupid.

What do you guys think, should primaries be open or closed?

[gregintenn]

In Tennessee, you don't register with a party affiliation. When you show up to vote in a primary election, you are asked if you want the Republican or the Democrat ballot. I suppose this is considered an open primary?

I can see the potential for one party uniting to vote for an unelectable candidate for the opposing party's primary, but i don't recall it ever happening here.

[ArchietheDragon]

Love it. Ct has closed primaries. Stupid

[Sum Dum Gai]

In Tennessee, you don't register with a party affiliation. When you show up to vote in a primary election, you are asked if you want the Republican or the Democrat ballot. I suppose this is considered an open primary?

Yep, that's exactly how California does it now.

In closed primary states only those registered as Republicans get the Republican primary ballot, and only those registered as Democrats get the Democratic primary ballot. Those registered as anything else don't get to vote in the primaries. Unless you're like a registered Green party member and there are actually more than one Green party candidates, but that almost never happens with the smaller parties.

[seriousthistime]

IL has open primaries.  I have been known to take ballots for the different parties, depending on how loud a voice I feel a need to express at a given time. 

At one point people were suggesting that I run for a position just a few notches up from dog catcher.  Having voted Democrat in one election and Republican in another, both parties thought I was not a viable candidate. Huge relief!

[Deleted]

We are closed primaries. I think more people would be independent or unaffiliated if it weren't for closed primaries. I'd prefer open.

[tallguy]

I've said it before, but I can't understand how all of the people in these other states allow themselves to be subject to closed primaries.  Screw the parties and what they want.  The power should be with the people.  I've never even seen a Democrat or Republican ballot.  We only have one.  Everyone is on it, and you can vote for whoever you want.

The parties did go to court and sue for the right to control the ballots.  Citizens fought back against them.    

[tallguy]

We used to have a blanket primary.  After the court battles with the parties, we now have this:

Top 2 Primary

Washington is the first state in the country to establish a Top 2 Primary election system, rather than a party nominating system. A Top 2 Primary narrows the number of candidates to two. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the Primary advance to the General Election, regardless of their party preference.

Candidates

Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate’s party preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate.

Voters

In each race, you may vote for any candidate listed on the ballot. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the Primary advance to the General Election, regardless of their party preference. Washington voters do not declare party affiliation as part of voter registration.

Political parties

Political parties do not have a guaranteed spot on the General Election ballot. The two candidates who advance to the General Election may prefer the same party, different parties, or not state a party preference. Parties are free to conduct their nominating procedures according to their own rules, at their own conventions, caucuses or meetings. This frees parties to develop their own criteria for nominations, endorsements, and other public declarations of support.

link

There is no recognition by the parties that the candidates are actually endorsed by the party.  Only a statement by the candidate that they "prefer" a certain party.  And we could end up with both candidates in the general election "preferring" the same party.    

Who says the parties deserve to run things however they want?   

[djAdvocate]

i hate closed primaries.  does that answer your question?

[Shooby]

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

[Deleted]

I had to look up ID, since I am a new resident.  The best I can tell, we have a closed Rep primary and an open (conflicting info on this one) Dem caucus.  I have no problem with either open or closed. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

because parties suck?

do you want ten other less snarky reasons, or will one snarky one suffice?

[tallguy]

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

No.  The point is for the PEOPLE to choose THEIR candidates.

[justme]

My state is closed, so that why my registered party and what I actually feel doesn't line up. I picked the party that I'm more likely to vote for.

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2016 21:59:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

because parties suck?

do you want ten other less snarky reasons, or will one snarky one suffice?

I would like to hear ten less snarky ones please.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2016 22:22:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 27, 2016 21:59:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

because parties suck?

do you want ten other less snarky reasons, or will one snarky one suffice?

I would like to hear ten less snarky ones please.

sure thing.

1)    the only place we see voting by party is in primaries.  the primary system is a way that entrenched power stays entrenched.  they are anti-democratic.
2)    partisan primaries exaggerate partisan ship and ensure that only polarizing candidates will be nominated.
3)    polarized candidates are inherently not representative of the general public.  non-partisan or independent voters will have their choices limited by the process.
4)    primaries are only held for parties that have secure ballot places.  this limits the formation of new parties.
5)    candidates who are running independently or without party cannot enter the primary process unless they join one of said parties.
6)    non-partisan candidates get no exposure until the general election, by which time many voters will have already selected a primary candidate.
7)    the parties work hard to marginalize and limit the number of choices to those of mainstream candidates.
8)    entrenched power utilizes systems that are already in place to "buy" candidates that fit their mould, with very little risk of more representative and public choices.
9)    there is nothing required or even invited by the constitution or any other sensible republican government for the formation or exclusivity of parties.
10)    the preservation of parties, and all the systems that support them, is antithetical to the idea of voter choice and representative self governance.

there is some overlap there, but that should cover it.

[Peace Of Mind]

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

Because many of us prefer to pick the person we feel is best qualified for the position and maybe, less crazy? regardless of what they claim to be.   

Our state is closed primaries and I wish they were open.  I've never voted straight party line. This is not a football or baseball team for crying out loud! 

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

Jan 27, 2016 23:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 27, 2016 22:22:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I would like to hear ten less snarky ones please.

sure thing.

1)    the only place we see voting by party is in primaries.  the primary system is a way that entrenched power stays entrenched.  they are anti-democratic.
2)    partisan primaries exaggerate partisan ship and ensure that only polarizing candidates will be nominated.
3)    polarized candidates are inherently not representative of the general public.  non-partisan or independent voters will have their choices limited by the process.
4)    primaries are only held for parties that have secure ballot places.  this limits the formation of new parties.
5)    candidates who are running independently or without party cannot enter the primary process unless they join one of said parties.
6)    non-partisan candidates get no exposure until the general election, by which time many voters will have already selected a primary candidate.
7)    the parties work hard to marginalize and limit the number of choices to those of mainstream candidates.
8)    entrenched power utilizes systems that are already in place to "buy" candidates that fit their mould, with very little risk of more representative and public choices.
9)    there is nothing required or even invited by the constitution or any other sensible republican government for the formation or exclusivity of parties.
10)    the preservation of parties, and all the systems that support them, is antithetical to the idea of voter choice and representative self governance.

there is some overlap there, but that should cover it.

4-10 are certainly problems with a partisan primary election system for narrowing down a field of candidates for an elective office. I don't see them addressing the issue of open v. closed primaries.

1. I find it interesting that this is the argument that was used originally to have primary elections instead of the candidates being selected by party bosses.
2. As the former resident of a state controlled primarily by one party, I can say that the open primary was used by the opposition in the attempt to get the most extreme candidates nominated with the hope they could be defeated in the general election.
3. Voters have choice in how they choose to involve or not involve themselves in the primary process.

I currently reside in the state that has the system shown in reply 7 above. With an election of many candidates splitting the vote, it can take a small number of votes to get into the top 2. So it doesn't stop a candidate with limited appeal.

So, do you have a good way to narrow down the field or are you good with general election with twenty names on the ballot with the winner getting just a small plurality of votes?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2016 0:36:17 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

Jan 27, 2016 23:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure thing.

1)    the only place we see voting by party is in primaries.  the primary system is a way that entrenched power stays entrenched.  they are anti-democratic.
2)    partisan primaries exaggerate partisan ship and ensure that only polarizing candidates will be nominated.
3)    polarized candidates are inherently not representative of the general public.  non-partisan or independent voters will have their choices limited by the process.
4)    primaries are only held for parties that have secure ballot places.  this limits the formation of new parties.
5)    candidates who are running independently or without party cannot enter the primary process unless they join one of said parties.
6)    non-partisan candidates get no exposure until the general election, by which time many voters will have already selected a primary candidate.
7)    the parties work hard to marginalize and limit the number of choices to those of mainstream candidates.
8)    entrenched power utilizes systems that are already in place to "buy" candidates that fit their mould, with very little risk of more representative and public choices.
9)    there is nothing required or even invited by the constitution or any other sensible republican government for the formation or exclusivity of parties.
10)    the preservation of parties, and all the systems that support them, is antithetical to the idea of voter choice and representative self governance.

there is some overlap there, but that should cover it.

4-10 are certainly problems with a partisan primary election system for narrowing down a field of candidates for an elective office. I don't see them addressing the issue of open v. closed primaries.

1. I find it interesting that this is the argument that was used originally to have primary elections instead of the candidates being selected by party bosses.
2. As the former resident of a state controlled primarily by one party, I can say that the open primary was used by the opposition in the attempt to get the most extreme candidates nominated with the hope they could be defeated in the general election.
3. Voters have choice in how they choose to involve or not involve themselves in the primary process.

I currently reside in the state that has the system shown in reply 7 above. With an election of many candidates splitting the vote, it can take a small number of votes to get into the top 2. So it doesn't stop a candidate with limited appeal.

So, do you have a good way to narrow down the field or are you good with general election with twenty names on the ballot with the winner getting just a small plurality of votes?

i'm totally opposed to narrowing down the field, candidly.  i don't see how it serves the interests of democracy to any degree to do so.

you run an election.  if someone gets 50% of the vote +1, he wins.
if he gets less than 50%, then you have some criteria for running off.
rank choice voting gets you there without an additional election, but there are lots of other ways.

that gives you very vibrant elections, where strippers and bus drivers can get into a runoff and potentially win.
i like that.
i want that.
some people don't.
like frumpy elitists and people that run this country from ivory towers.

[marvholly]

Even though IL has open primaries I am torn this year.  My preferences straddle both parties: ie diff for president & US senator.

Not sure how I will handle/if I will do a primary vote. Guess it will depend on who all is still viable on the ballots.

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2016 23:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...
3)    polarized candidates are inherently not representative of the general public. ...
...

Jan 28, 2016 1:20:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...

that gives you very vibrant elections, where strippers and bus drivers can get into a runoff and potentially win.
i like that.
i want that.
...

The strippers I recall running have been pole candidates not "representative of the general public".

[busymom]

Our state has closed primaries, and I HATE it.   I mean, if you can only vote one party, what's the point?

[billisonboard]

Jan 28, 2016 10:54:57 GMT -5 busymom said:

Our state has closed primaries, and I HATE it.   I mean, if you can only vote one party, what's the point?

The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses.

I think the system we have here in Washington state (see reply 7 of this thread) is better than what would be considered an "open" primary.

[sesfw]

The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses. 




This is the reason for primary elections in the first place. .......... To choose who the state reps select at the national conventions.

General elections are open.

I can see the potential for one party uniting to vote for an unelectable candidate for the opposing party's primary, but I don't recall it ever happening here.

I haven't seen it either but the potential is there.

[Chocolate Lover]

Jan 28, 2016 11:05:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 28, 2016 10:54:57 GMT -5 busymom said:

Our state has closed primaries, and I HATE it.   I mean, if you can only vote one party, what's the point?

The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses.

I think the system we have here in Washington state (see reply 7 of this thread) is better than what would be considered an "open" primary.

I live in an area with what I just learned are "open" primaries. It doesn't feel very open when I only get to pick one side to have a say on. Especially since I very emphatically don't identify with either major party. I would like to not have to pick a party and just get to pick the candidates that don't disgust me, whichever side they're on. 

I live in such a Republican entrenched area that when I show up at primaries for local (county/city) stuff, there's little to nothing on the Dem ticket. Page full of people running R but maybe 2 actually running D. Makes me ill that so many offices here are won at the primary level because they'll be running unopposed but so few people show up to vote because they just don't get how it works. 


Reading back over your post, Bill, I have no idea why I quoted you but I'm leaving it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2016 10:20:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 27, 2016 23:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...
3)    polarized candidates are inherently not representative of the general public. ...
...

Jan 28, 2016 1:20:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...

that gives you very vibrant elections, where strippers and bus drivers can get into a runoff and potentially win.
i like that.
i want that.
...

The strippers I recall running have been pole candidates not "representative of the general public".

haha.  pole candidates.   love it. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2016 11:27:21 GMT -5 sesfw said:

The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses. 




This is the reason for primary elections in the first place. .......... To choose who the state reps select at the national conventions.

General elections are open.

I can see the potential for one party uniting to vote for an unelectable candidate for the opposing party's primary, but I don't recall it ever happening here.

I haven't seen it either but the potential is there.

i am kinda saying "f*&k primaries".

why do you think that primaries are important?

MOST countries seem to do fine without them.

[gregintenn]

Jan 27, 2016 21:49:49 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Why should Dems pick Repo candidates or vice versa? The point of the primary is for your party to choose Their candidate.

When your candidate is a shoe in, you can vote for opposition you can beat.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 28, 2016 1:20:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you run an election.  if someone gets 50% of the vote +1, he wins.
if he gets less than 50%, then you have some criteria for running off.
rank choice voting gets you there without an additional election, but there are lots of other ways.

that gives you very vibrant elections, where strippers and bus drivers can get into a runoff and potentially win.
i like that.
i want that.
some people don't.
like frumpy elitists and people that run this country from ivory towers.

This seems so simple and right. 

[billisonboard]

Jan 28, 2016 12:02:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 28, 2016 11:27:21 GMT -5 sesfw said:

The point is that you have the members (or those who self select to be) of that party choosing the person who will represent them on the general election ballot. Primaries were created to take that decision out of the hands of the party bosses. 




This is the reason for primary elections in the first place. .......... To choose who the state reps select at the national conventions.

General elections are open.

I can see the potential for one party uniting to vote for an unelectable candidate for the opposing party's primary, but I don't recall it ever happening here.

I haven't seen it either but the potential is there.

i am kinda saying "f*&k primaries".

why do you think that primaries are important?

MOST countries seem to do fine without them.

Don't most countries have party organizations that select the person who will represent them in the election? We used to have that but decided in most places that we would allow the general population that identifies with the party decide who from a slate of candidates (if more than one person wishes to run for the office for that party) through a primary election system. The problem is that a growing number of our general population does not have a strong or any identification with one party but still have two main political parties. Moving away from a strict partisan primary makes sense (again see what we have done in Washington State). If we do away with any sort of primary election, what we would have is a large number of candidates on the general election ballot. It would lead to the real possibility that no one would get 50% plus one vote. Do we have the person who got the support of 1 out of 4 voters take office or do we have some sort of run off election? Personally, I see plurality office holders as a bad idea. And I don't see a significant difference between a top two primary before the general election and a top two run off election after the general.