Who should be permitted to vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses?

[CreekDog]

Who should be permitted to vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses?

21 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Time expired
	Registered Democrats only (or in states without party registration Declared Democrats only)
	5 (24%)
	Registered Democrats and voters not affiliated with a party
	15 (71%)
	Any registered voter (including registered Republicans)
	1 (5%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[SeattleVet]

1. In many states you do not register by party.

The ballot includes everyone, and you check a box declaring for D or R then are able to vote only those candidates.

[loyalsister]

2. No party registration here

You choose a party ballot when you vote. Republicans want to change it and have closed primaries, though.

[Demsrule86]

8. Absolutely not. Democrats choose the nominee.

[Demsrule86]

9. I think this hurts us but you can still register as a Democrat.

[loyalsister]

14. I don't want to register

It is discourages primary voting altogether and that's why republicans want it. MO has heavy libertarian influences and registeration with the state will drive people away from party participation and voting in general. Voter suppression is for republicans.

[Demsrule86]

16. Well the Gop fuck with us in open primary states and fail to see why you don't want to register.

They will track you anyway.

[loyalsister]

18. Do you have proof that the GOP screwed with Democratic primaries in Missouri?

or vise versa?

[Jokerman]

3. Primaries should be eliminated.

I'd support a single election of all qualified candidates followed by a runoff, if no one candidate gets a majority.

[Voltaire2]

4. I think that is an interesting idea but

the downside is that it makes it difficult for relative unknowns to have any chance. A national campaign is hugely expensive.

[Jokerman]

5. True. It would have to be accompanied by finance reform.

I'll also admit that defining the term "qualified candidate" could be a minefield, but I feel that our current primary system was messed up to begin with and has now been corrupted beyond repair.

[Demsrule86]

7. I disagree. Our system is fine. But not everyone likes the outcome.

[yardwork]

17. I didn't like the outcome in 2016. Did you? Our system allowed Trump to win even though he lost.

[MH1]

11. I might support that if combined with some form of ranked choice voting.

But then we'd have to figure out how to deal with the Electoral College problem.

I answered the poll for the system we have today. For primaries, if a state has registration by party, then only persons registered for a specific party may vote in that party's primary.

As long as we have the current system, declaring a party affiliation to vote in that party's primary is not an onerous burden, IMO.

On the other hand, there is an issue of primary voters picking a candidate too extreme for the general election. I think we need more education on how the system works so more people avoid that mistake.

[sacto95834]

20. We have this system in CA

It has produced some interesting results. But overall, it seems to be working. It's kind of a runoff system - only the two top candidates go onto the General Election. I'm sure the Republicans in CA hate it.

I kinda feel sorry for the California Republicans as I respect the opinions of some of the old school Republicans - ie. Gerald Ford and more recently Richard Riordan. Today the Republican party is something I just don't recognize. I like debating ideas, but when it turns to just ugly name calling, then those opinions are worthless.

[SFnomad]

21. It's a horrible idea. California has "Jungle Primaries" ... just go look at some of the issues they

have with that. Last election, the Democrats were worried about losing "safe D" districts because a lesser number of Rs would run in the district and could take 1st and 2nd, while a large crowd of Ds would dilute their vote, to the point of coming in no better than 3rd. I don't believe it happened in any district ... but why make this a real possibility?

[Jokerman]

22. I believe that real election reform will ultimately benefit liberal causes.

It shouldn't be about protecting and promoting one party or the other.

The mere existence of "safe districts" is a large part of the problem.

[SFnomad]

23. Jungle Primaries are not "election reform" and in themselves do nothing to fix the safe district

issue. If you have a district that is reliably one party or the other, but the primary yields a result that both general election candidates are of the opposite party, that's not "reform", but idiocy. You're now in a situation where "none of the above", if allowed, would win.

In a state that is as heavily Democratic as California is, you can't get rid of the fact that there will be "safe districts". To say the mere existence of them is part of the problem, is it ignore math. They're not part of the problem, they're an undeniable fact of math.

[Demsrule86]

6. If you refuse to join the party than no primary votes for you, this year the GOP will fuck

With our open primaries in places like Ohio. If you are not one of us, you don't choose our nominee.

[LongtimeAZDem]

10. +∞

[Demsrule86]

13. Thanks

[MH1]

12. Agreed, but Dem voters need to understand how the general election works

and that - if we want a D in the WH in 2021 - the nominee needs to be someone who will represent the entire country, including people who don't agree with us. We can't just say, screw those people, they're only "deplorables" anyway, yet somehow expect to get enough votes to win the Electoral College.

[Demsrule86]

15. I have only had one nominee that I supported in the primary that I voted for in the general.

That would be President Obama...and I disagreed with him on trade. What about the midwest ...no candidate was ever truly for us. But I always voted for the nominee and will again. Even if you don't feel the nominee represents you...I fucking promise you he/ she will be10000× better than the Republican. We will be fighting the right wing court for 40 years because some didn't vote for the nominee...and a giant fuck you to all of them. They betrayed us. All Democrats should vote for whoever the nominee is no matter what.

[MH1]

19. I'm 100% where you are - but I'm not the voter you need to convince.

It is swing voters in swing states that we need to pay attention to. For me, my choice to vote for in the primary will be one I think those voters SHOULD be willing to vote for. (and preferably less likely to be manipulated out of voting for)