What is the fascination with an open primary?

[Whimsey]

So we could have Trump run as the candidate? Or once the republican candidate or another party candidate has the nomination anyone from that party in subsequent states can come in and vote against the best person capable of beating him or her?

What we need is more access in the primary system to parties other than the big two. If you want true political change, make it easier for a third party to get on all states' ballots.

[Cheese Sandwich]

1. One big question is how far in advance do people need to register with a party.

Like what are the requirements.

When people are having to register 6 months in advance that excludes so many people from having a voice. It doesn't seem fair to a lot of people.

[auntpurl]

4. I agree with that.

I think New York was too early cut off.

But I believe completely in closed primaries and the party choosing its own nominee.

[Adrahil]

9. I think registration requirements shouldn't that harsh.

But I do think you should be able to change your affiliation only once a year. I don't want rat-fuckers who will change affilaition just to fuck with our primary and then change back immediatly.

[Whimsey]

2. That varies by state

We have a party system. Parties have the right to run members of their parties. We have multiple parties, more can be created. Will Bernie's supporters jump through the hoops to create a new party for their movement? They feel unwelcome in the democratic party, so their own party would be a solution. Then they can create their own rules. And you know what - some members of their own party won't be happy with their rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Until that happens, open primaries are far more democratic in terms of who decides a party...

As long as you have an oligarchy, the rule is to restrict that access. The less progressive states do this. The result is that you won't have a democracy. Pretty straight forward in my book.

[auntpurl]

5. The less progressive states do this?

Like Oregon? And California?

[MrMickeysMom]

7. Those states are not less progressive, and they do not use the model of NY, PA, which is my state

In PA or NY, the party must be declared ahead of time, in the case of NY 6 MONTHS ahead, which didn't allow voters to be introduced to Bernie Sanders even running. In PA and other states like it such as NY, you show up one day, no early voting (even FL has that) to vote the party you register with.

More progressive states have gotten past this restrictive rule.

[Adrahil]

10. What is the point of being an "independent"

If you want to have a say int he party's nominee? If you want a say, join the party. If you want to be independent,mwell, the price of that is you don't get a say in party nominees... Pretty straight forward.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. In fact, it's not straight forward at all...

Sorry, but after explaining so many time over last evening the point about how Independent registrations have grown (at least 46% of the electorate by now), I'll just cut and paste the reasoning behind this. I believe if you examine the relationship of political parties over the last 15 to 20 years, you can see WHY people are so frustrated in the two party system they have little change to change... That is my best reckoning of why people move to that status. I've spoken with LARGE numbers of people one-one (local elections, my ward, which I represented for 5 years) and I've been phone banking all year for Bernie. Every state I speak to (latest being KY) supports the reason they have moved AWAY from our party. It's disheartening.

Anyway, this is my explanation to another DUer about why there are so many Independents from last evening -

Setting aside that both YOU and I know that the primary states of today have "always been closed" (actually, that's not quite true, but for the sake of the argument, I'll agree that they've been pretty static as many of us slept), how do you suppose this phenomena of who is and isn't a Democrat has changed over time?

What is the logic behind the change in party for MANY Democrats residing in the "closed primary states" over the last 15 to 20 years? I can tell you that these voters (CLOSE TO HALF OF THE ELECTORATE) have moved away from the Democratic party. And, it doesn't just happen by accident. Unless you are one of those true believers who think that the Democrats previously elected kept on giving their electorate love, you will see that their movement OUT of our party happened with reason. Coupled with gerrymandering to help the Republicans, they left because they saw (and still see) that the party left us. They now have lessened the chance of inclusion unless the state allows them to. They STILL hold the long-forgotten Democratic party's values. THEY HAVE NO PLACE, unless they change parties just to have a primary vote. Depending on where they are, they can. And, when they do, they do it because they see a candidate WHO NEVER FORGOT THOSE VALUES.

Your problem is one of over-simplicity when no longer looking at people who are fed up with corporately owned members of our party. You pretend they don't exist. They do.

The rules of governance aren't supposed to change to serve Bernie Sanders. They're supposed to serve US. Too bad you can't remove the filter and see it.

[Arneoker]

12. Oh please, your narrative is simplistic, boring and wrong!

I have been living in Virginia for decades. We don't even register by party, so all of our primaries are by definition open.

Virginia's politics have changed a lot, but this is hardly a particularly progressive state. We now have photo ID requirements for voters, something which, IMHO anyway, really does hurt democracy and favor oligarchies.

[BobbyDrake]

15. Is it more progressive to use caucuses then? They're the least democratic option.

But I understand Bernie wins caucuses, so no changes to caucuses, right? Only change the closed primaries where Bernie lost, is that the plan?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. You don't understand the term.

An open primary means that voters can vote in either party primary. I support open primaries as I think they draw people into the party they vote for. Most voters, by a wide margin, are not registered for either party. Our candidate should appeal to those voters as they are going to decide the outcome of the general election.

But yes, open vs closed, is not what is wrong with our system. It starts with the money.

[Adrahil]

11. Open primaries are ripe for manipulation...

If only one party has a competitive race, it makes it very easy for those from the other party to toss a wrench in process. And it doesn't take very many to do it.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Except of course that there is almost no evidence that this has ever happened.

It is a myth right up there with "voter fraud" on the pantheon of invented problems we should be very concerned about.

[Adrahil]

16. I don't agree. I think exit polls show it many many places, such as WV...

Where about third of voters said they will vote for Trump in the fall regardless of who wins the nomination! And of those who would vote that way, more than half are Sanders voters. That's leaving out another 30% or so of Trump voters who refused to say who they voted for in the primary. If they intend to vote for Trump, why not vote in the Republican primary instead? WV is not the only place where we see that, though it is one of the worst... not surprising since it comes on the heels of all of Trumps opponents dropping out.

[loyalsister]

8. I like the way ours is run in MO

No party registration necessary, but we can only vote in one party's primary. To vote in primaries, we request a Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian ballot and vote. There are Libertarians running in one of the districts pretty much every election cycle.

I dislike their ideology, but I think it is good that they have a strong presence here. Especially since it is mostly republicans who vote for them.

[pinebox]

17. What is with the fascination with not letting people vote?

You sound like a Republican living in a world of fear.
Open primaries are good, they better reflect a general election.
Quit the faux-outrage and voter suppression bullshit