General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpdycke: All voters should be eligible to vote in all elections, including primaries
Can the Democratic Party become a voice for democracy?John Opdycke
The Hill
Virginia Delegate Sam Rasoul recently made statewide news after resigning as Treasurer of the Democratic caucus and declaring that the Democratic Party wasnt going far enough to build trust with the American people. He recently told me, I love our platform. Thats not the problem. When we say we are the party of the people but then we defend a political system that excludes millions of people from voting in primaries, why should people trust us? I think people have lost trust with both parties but that lack of trust is a bigger issue for Democrats because the gap between our rhetoric and our actions is wider. Nobody will believe us on the issues if we dont start telling the truth about our broken political process.
The American people are distressed by the decline in our world standing, by the growing gap between rich and poor, and by the lack of a level playing field in politics. A recent poll by pollster Pat Caddell showed that 67 percent of Americans believe that the real struggle in our country is not between left and right but between the ruling political elites and the rest of the country. American democracy needs to be overhauled to address the gap between insiders and outsiders. All voters should be eligible to vote in all elections, including primaries. Districts should be drawn fairly, not to serve party interests. State legislatures, Congress, and the Federal Election Commission should not be controlled by party caucuses and special interests.
The Democratic Party has an opportunity to become a voice for democracy. That means building a more inclusive political process. It may also mean giving up some short term privileges. But by dedicating itself to rebuilding our democracy, the Democratic Party has a real chance to reverse its fortune and help our country move forward in the process.
I know this won't be popular to say here, but Opdycke is correct. We like to think of party primaries as playing a role akin to a first-pass vote and the general as quasi run-off where the strongest candidates run.
As we saw in 2016, the primary process on the Democratic side didn't produce the strongest candidate with the widest support, and on the Republican side produced a disaster. When you consider not the percentage of actual voters, but the percentage of Trump voters out of all possible voters, Trump was elected by 27% of the eligible voting population. Clinton got 28.5%. That's not exactly a representative democracy.
When you take a look at the primaries, again assuming percentage of voters out of all citizens able to vote in 2016, Trump was selected by 6% of the voting population and Clinton was selected by 7%. Given this, it's not hard to see why somewhere around 90 million people didn't even bother to vote.
I understand the position of only allowing Democrats to vote in Democratic primaries, but if the assumption is that the Party is so fragile that allowing too many people to vote in a primary would destroy the Party, then the Party is in serious trouble.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)She won by 3 million votes.
There was nothing wrong with our candidates.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"the Democratic side didn't produce the strongest candidate with the widest support..."
Senator Sanders (I-VT) never had to run as a Democrat, and could have at anytime left "the corruption of the Democratic Party primaries" and the tyrannical impositions of the monstrous Debbie Wasserman Shultz and run as the independent he was.
He never stuck his neck out, did he?
No, what he did was weaken our nominee and give major, repeated talking points to the freakin' nut job he helped put in office.
Thanks for delivering the Rust Belt, Bernie.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Especially this part:
Sid
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)MichMan
(11,940 posts)I am not in favor of open primaries because it is too easy for an opposing party with an incumbent to cross over and sabotage our primary by voting for the weakest candidate
portlander23
(2,078 posts)And certainly one with historical evidence. Republican voters were able to interfere in the Michigan primary in 1972 and select George Wallace. While that was an embarrassment, I don't think it changed the outcome of the primary at the national level.
I'm sympathetic to this, but I have to think given the extremely low participation in primaries that opening it up to more voters is going to counteract aberrations like this.
MichMan
(11,940 posts)I am convinced that Democratic voters crossing over in the Republican primary in Michigan in 2010 was what gave Rick Snyder the nomination and eventually the win.
Governor Granholm was term limited and with the recession hitting Michigan so hard, it was clear that it would be a Republican in office in 2010. Her Lt Governor, John Cherry declined to run and the only one that stepped up was Lansing mayor Virg Bernero along with speaker Andy Dillon.
Snyder, a relatively unknown businessman with no political experience, won the Republican primary over several others in a surprise upset. Polling indicated that a significant number of Democratic voters crossed over in an attempt to knock out the Republican favorites, US Rep Peter Hoekstra and Mich AG Mike Cox.
Snyder won the primary and defeated Bernero in the general election. The consequences of that would have major ramifications for the state during his term, so these "spoiler" crossover votes in primaries can sometimes have unintended consequences.
I don't know if any Dems crossed over and voted for Trump after Bernie withdrew believing Trump was a joke and would easily lose to Clinton. I imagine there were quite a few and they will have to live with their decision.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)If you look at the numbers, very small numbers of people are participating in primaries. I'm less concerned about the small percentage of the voters who voted in GOP primaries trying to screw over the small percentage of voters who vote in Democratic primaries. The problem, especially in 2016, was the entire populace was presented with the two least popular candidates in history and 90 million people stayed home.
More people voting is going to benefit Democrats, not Republicans.
otohara
(24,135 posts)if you're so concerned about people participating just kill the caucus. I read a Twitter post the other day by a Sanders supporter that said he won in a landslide in Maine. Only 4000 people caucused in Maine and in my blue progressive state Colorado only 127,000 participated in this ridiculous antiquated voter suppressing mess.
Problem solved - lots more participate - in my state a million more would have participated.
Thank God we voted to rid CO of the caucus system - nobody was happy and Hillary would have won had there been a primary as she did in Washington state.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)They're ridiculous.
Squinch
(50,957 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Why should Republicans get to choose who represents us in the election?
Gothmog
(145,374 posts)I do not want a Sanders supporter to be DNC chair. I also believe that the Democratic Party needs to eliminate caucuses and hold closed primaries
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)To much fuckery goes on in the caucuses and too many people are left out.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)There are others parties bettter suited to them - and they should grow their own belief system within those parties. I.E. if Democratic Socialism and the Green Party ran candidates in every election - from the dog catcher to the county clerk - they could grow their base.
They wimp out unless its the White House. Note this is the Democratic Underground and I only support Democratics here.