Honest question about Democratic primaries.

[Arkansas Granny]

With all the talk of open and closed primary contests, what benefit would the Democratic party gain by having open primaries across the board?

[Jester Messiah]

1. They'd get a nominee more reflective of the mood of the general electorate n/t

[virtualobserver]

2. When people vote in the Primary, they establish a connection with the Democratic Party.

When people are excluded, they are alienated from the party.

[Hoyt]

4. If you are a Democrat, how are you excluded?

[virtualobserver]

6. Your post explains why Democrats lose.....you have no interest in expanding the party.

[Hoyt]

9. So, let's let GOPers, libertarians, etc., vote also to select our best candidate. Don't think so.

[virtualobserver]

15. your argument is just like the Republican "voter fraud" argument

they claim that they want to prevent voter fraud that rarely happens, but what they really want to prevent is voting itself.

You claim that you want to prevent the rarity of GOPers, libertarians voting in the primary, but the real goal is to keep independent and progressive voters out.

[Hoyt]

17. It's not that rare. "Progressive" -- that term means nothing. There are gun nuts who consider it

progressive to allow guns anywhere.

You want to select the Democratic nominee or union leaders, support the Party or Union. It's not a difficult concept.

[virtualobserver]

19. you are just playing with words

Your strategy to exclude voters is the strategy of a dying party.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. If voters want to establish a connection with the Democratic Party, why not register as Democrats?

[virtualobserver]

18. That requirement can lead to mass disenfranchisement, as we have seen in this election.

Creating hurdles for voters is a foolish and undemocratic notion.

[Hoyt]

3. If trying to elect who DEMOCRATS think is the best candidate for the OPEN general election, none.

Heck, put the Democratic Primary on a different day from the GOPer Primary, and let GOPers help elect the best candidate for the GE.

[LisaM]

5. At this point, they have everything to lose (and it would have been the same in 2004)

With the Republican nominee in place, open primaries would mean that any GOP voter could come in and mess around in our primaries (and I'd say the same if the tables were turned - no matter how much I despised the candidates, I would never go vote in a Republican primary).

I'm sure people who simply lean Democratic or are far left don't see it in these terms - they see themselves as being excluded from the primaries by their decision not to declare a party. But that's a choice.

But the open primaries caused a lot of shifting in Michigan for example - I think it was wrong of Hillary voters to crossover and vote for Kasich, as numbers show they did, and for Trump voters to come vote for whoever they voted for - and now there would be absolutely nothing preventing Trump or Cruz voters from coming over to the Democratic primaries and meddling.

The Democratic party shouldn't be defined so narrowly either. I consider myself part of the liberal wing, but it was always one of the party mantras that we were the big tent and that there's room for all. By that logic, I don't think it should be a stretch to be a registered Democrat, even if you vote Green or Socialist in general elections.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. A stronger GE candidate.

It's the smart move for any group that constitutes a minority of the electorate (c. 30% at present...and I'd bet the farm that will go down after this shitshow of a primary and the divisive effect it's having on the party). I suspect that within a decade, independents will constitute a majority of eligible voters, not the mere plurality they now constitute. The party that does the best job of appealing to them will prevail, at least for as long as big political parties remain viable at all (they're doomed, of course...eventually). A part of appealing is to engage them early in the cycle by allowing them to be part of the decision process for the nominee.

[SheenaR]

8. I see the argument from both sides

But there are people that simply do not want to be labeled or box themselves into one particular group.

If those people during an election cycle find one (or more) of our candidates appealing over what the other side has to offer, I welcome them to be a part of the process. In Rhode Island it has worked for years through the semi-closed primary.

We have called ourselves the party of inclusion for a long time. Let's back it up. Because while our numbers are fairly stagnant, theirs continue to grow. And if these "unaffiliated" voters ever organized themselves due to disenfranchisement, we would be outnumbered by a good amount. To me, it's a purely solid business move to open our voting to those who wish to take part in it.

Again, I understand the alternative argument. I just feel differently.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. But don't open primaries also invite Republicans, Libertarians to choose our candidate?

[SheenaR]

14. Which is why I prefer the semi-closed primary

Which would not allow that to happen.

Only someone listed as unaffiliated could partake. Not a registered Republican or Libertarian.

[One Black Sheep]

12. They should, and it should be open to independents as well.

Independents now make up the largest percentage of the electorate, mainly because both parties have turned off large members of the public now, for basically being terrible and not performing and selling out, so why not have independents be part of the process.

Why wouldn't you want the candidate who appeals to the largest section of the public now?

It just makes common sense.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. But, does that benefit the Democratic party or does it benefit independents.

If independents make up such a large percentage of the electorate, shouldn't they field their own candidate?

[One Black Sheep]

16. "If independents make up such a large percentage of the electorate,"

"If independents make up such a large percentage of the electorate, shouldn't they field their own candidate?"

Excellent question! That opens up a whole other can of worms that could be discussed at length separately.


And yes, I do think it will benefit Democrats, because as I said, independents are what is going to decide future elections.

[Maedhros]

21. Good idea!

I think we will!

[Demsrule86]

20. GOP interferance

I should know in 12 when Obama was the nominee I voted in the GOP primary...just to mess it up...a lot of us did...and yes I know it is wrong.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Living up to it's name. "democratic".

[Txbluedog]

23. What's the difference between an open primary and a general?

Why should someone who is not a registered democrat or a registered republican get to choose the nominee of the respective party? It's like allowing non Catholic Church elders to choose a Pope