should we have bipartisan primaries?

[flaminbats]

a nonpartisan primary is what Louisiana has, all the candidates from every party appear on a single ballot. if no one gets a majority, the two candidates with the most votes appear on the ballot in November. This means two Democrats could be on the ballot in November, two Republicans, a Democrat and an independent, a Republican and a Democrat, or a Republican and an independent.

but a bipartisan primary would allow every voter to vote in both primaries. each voter could pick their favorite Republican and Democrat. Under this system I could vote for John Edwards in the Democratic primary along with Ron Paul in the Republican primary. That would give us a shot of choosing the nominees of both parties. even if Hillary won the Democratic nomination and Paul got nominated by Republicans..our nominee losing in November wouldn't be a complete disaster.

it also means that a NRA member could back John McCain and Bill Richardson..who has the best record of primary candidates running in both parties. it would allow supporters of a national sales tax to back Mike Gravel and Tom Tancredo. so would it help or hurt our system if Republicans could vote in our primary and we could vote in their primary?

[ulysses]

1. no.

Georgia's system is bad enough. I don't need repukes voting for which of my choices gets to the general.

[flaminbats]

3. Georgia's system only allows the voter to choose 1 primary..

but I'm asking if we should be allowed to cast two primary votes, one for the Republican nominee and another for the Democratic nominee.

[ulysses]

6. yeah, I know.

At least with our system, there's a penalty of sorts if you want to mess with the other party's primary - you don't get to vote in your own.

I say no, but that's me.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Perhaps. But "bi" means we'll need two parties first...

... instead of just one fractious "business party."

[More Than A Feeling]

4. OveralI, I like it. First, it has the virtue of being novel.

It would instantly resurrect the defunct liberal wing of the Republican party, by giving such candidates a base of...the Democratic party. Frankly, though, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party doesn't need any more encouragement.

Most of all, it instantly scramble the brains of every politician we have. They wouldn't know who to pander to anymore. They might have to content themselves with taking *gasp* overwhelmingly popular positions, which as we know, favor liberals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. No way!

It's an open invitation for members of one party to sabotage the other.

For example, suppose the Republicanites have had Congresscritter Placeholder in office for thirty years. The Democrats cannot budge Placeholder, who always squeaks into office. Finally, Placeholder retires, so the seat is open.

The Democratic activists talk Mayor Dynamo of the district's largest city into running in the primary. Mayor Dynamo has a great track record as mayor, has won the admiration of a wide cross-section of people, and is full of ideas that are both exciting and practical.

However, there's a dog catcher named Terry Blobbo, who really wants to go to Congress. The trouble is that Blobbo is the opposite of charismatic, believes that everything is fine just as it is, and wants to go to Congress in order to be seen on CSPAN. In the typical partisan primary, Dog Catcher Blobbo would be seen as a crank candidate and would be eliminated.

However, under an open primary system, the Republicanites are cackling with glee. They have one candidate, a protegee of Congresscritter Placeholder, and they outnumber registered Democrats, so they tell their people to vote for Blobbo in the Democratic primary.

Now it's a run-off between Placeholder's protegee, Congressional Aide Officepark, and Dog Catcher Blobbo. Guess who wins.

If people want a voice in choosing a party's candidates, they should join that party. It's not American Idol.

[Taco Meat]

7. I could see both sides, but I agree.

It just leaves too much open to voter sabotage.

[flaminbats]

8. in other words the incumbents would benefit most..

allot of Republicans would have voted in our primaries in 2004. But it might of given someone like Bloomberg or Jeffords a reason to challenge Bush in the Republican primary, even when Bush seemed unbeatable. Bush would of had a political reason to compromise with liberals if he didn't want a primary challenge in 2004, while conservative voters would have been struggling whether to vote for Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Clark, or Dean.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. LMAO at the names

And awesome job explaining the flaw.

[AtomicKitten]

9. no and I'll tell you why

The first thing that comes to mind is that Republicans if nothing else are organized and, considering getting Democrats to agree on anything is indeed like herding cats, I have no doubt whatsoever when these two factoids collide, that means we're screwed.

No thanks.

[MasterDarkNinja]

10. no, people would vote strategicly rather then for the best person

If you allow Democrats and republicans to vote in both side's primaries you'd get people getting votes because people think they're a weak candidate, or they're so stupid no one would vote for them, or other horrible reasons to get elected.

Letting independents pick which primary to vote in however I don't have a problem with, since usually they'll pick someone who best represents the country/state and not try to sabotage a party with their vote.

[flaminbats]

11. an incentive to stop bashing liberalism..

most Republicans don't associate liberalism with liberty. But if liberals voted in the Republican primary, a Republican couldn't just win primary votes by bashing our party and calling abortion "murder". wouldn't a Republican have to embrace some liberal positions and moderate his attacks to be nominated without serious competition?

allowing independents to vote in either primary is what Georgia does, instead of having party registration..all voters are treated as independents. This allows every voter to vote in either primary. unfortunately this leaves very few people voting in the primary with an unchallenged incumbent..and more people voting in the contended primary. this resulted in a bloody runoff between Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor, which ultimately helped Sonny Perdue in November. but under a bipartisan primary, a liberal would have a good reason to challenge Perdue in the primary. This would give candidates the ability to discuss issues not being touched by an incumbent who only wanted conservative or liberal support in the primary.

[Orangepeel]

12. Why?

If everyone can vote in both primaries, why have primaries? I don't get the benefit of doing it "your" way versus the Louisiana way you describe.

[flaminbats]

14. the Louisiana way, incumbents have the advantage..

this means a popular incumbent can win a majority in the primary, and have no opposition in November.

the method I am proposing would force an incumbent to win support from the opposing wing to be renominated. A Republican incumbent would not simply be renominated by attacking "tax and spend liberals" or by calling antiwar voters traitors. if a Republican wanted to be renominated and re-elected, it would take a careful balancing act..of making concessions and avoiding racial or religious attacks on the liberal wing of the Republican party.

Conservatives couldn't just blame Democrats for all their problems, because they would play a part in selecting the Democratic nominee. In other words Republicans would talk about healthcare reform and raising revenue for the Iraqi War in their debates, and Democrats would discuss specific exit strategies for Iraq and how being prolife doesn't = banning abortion or embryonic stemcell research.

In other words stepping into the other party would seem less like traveling across the Mexican border, but more like traveling into another state.