Featured Open vs Closed primaries

In my county the Democrats vote in the GOP primary because they cannot win a single election in this county. When I lived in the old Solid South, I voted in the Democrat primary because the GOP could not win a single election in those days. So I think that the feds should stay out of it.

As for non-partisan elections, that is the way our school board elections are in this state. Nowadays school board members are charging the school districts for their health insurance so it is no longer a volunteer job. Frankly, I wish that it would become partisan.

 

Closed primaries perpetuate a two party system that is corrupt, broken, and in need of massive overhaul...or a third party.

 

Federal government? No.
State government? It's their prerogative.

 

Hmmm... I thought that was a task a political party convention undertook. Are there any states where the primary results automatically ensure the primary winner is the party endorsed candidate? I can't think of any.

In other words, the primary results are not binding on the party.

 

I've no problem with either mode. Open primaries are what got Jerry Litton nominated to fill the seat of retiring U.S. Senator Stuart Symington from Missouri in 1976. Litton was an outstanding free-thinker, affiliating with the Democrats primarily because, in that day and age, the Truman aura still determined party affiliation in Missouri. Republicans couldn't get elected. That also required Litton to play nice with other Democrats on the statewide and national stage, though he was unhesitant in disagreeing with them on a lot of the major issues.

Unfortunately, Litton died in a plane crash which his dad, to his own dying day, maintained was no accident, the very night of his successful nomination. While Symington's son Jim and former Missouri Gov. Warren Hearnes were the favorites in the Democratic primary, it was Republicans and independents crossing over literally by the hundreds of thousands the day of the election to give Litton the nomination. (P.S.: While the info on the linked website is accurate regarding Litton's career and charisma, it is obviously maintained by someone who don't know beans about farming. Litton's family raised Charolais and became rich doing so, but Charolais are cattle, not horse.)

Non-partisan elections are a bit different, but I agree with them as having an advantage over partisan politics. Proponents of nonpartisan ballots suggest that political parties are irrelevant to providing services, and that cooperation between elected officials belonging to different parties is more likely. I have no clue how they arrive at that last conclusion, because it is painfully obvious the exact opposite is true.

Proponents for partisan elections argue that the absence of party labels confuses voters, which is ridiculous. A voter who must choose from among a group of candidates whom he/she knows nothing about, so goes the argument, will have no meaningful basis in casting a ballot. The antithesis of this is that, by voting based on party rather than candidate qualifications, we get exactly what we got: Gridlock, bickering, and polarization.

In the absence of a party ballot, the partisan supporters claim, voters will turn to whatever cue is available, which often turns out to be the ethnicity of a candidate's name. While that may be true, two Hispanic names on the same ballot doesn't tell you what their politics is, without a party affiliation designated. There are, believe it or not, conservative Hispanics, conservative blacks.

They also claim non-partisanship tends to produce elected officials more representative of the upper socioeconomic strata than of the general populace and aggravates the class bias in voting turnout, because in true non-partisan systems there are no organizations of local party workers to bring lower-class citizens to the polls on election day. That, in my opinion, is probably true, but non-partisanship also prevents special interests, as represented through the party, from being attracted to politicians based solely on party, and negates the impact of PACs, since most such organizations are geared not to individual positions on issues, but again, on party affiliation, which the PAC managers can depend on to "manage" their interest through party alignment on given issues.

 

It is difficult to get information on lower level candidates and sometimes you have to hope that the party did their homework for you. Parties do serve a purpose. However, as the Hoosier farmer said, I vote for the man, not the party: Coolidge, Hoover, Landon, Willkie, Dewey....

 

Indiana has a long association with the GOP because our Gov. Morton was a personal friend of President Lincoln and Indiana quickly borrowed money from a rich man in Madison, Indiana, and sent money and troops to D.C. The man was named Lanier.

http://www.keywestshrimphouse.com/Templates/james%20lanier%20mansion.htm

 

Thing is, to my understanding being a part of a third party political party won't allow you to vote in the primaries.

 

I myself want to change my official party...thing (word not coming to mind, sorry!) to libertarian, but am not sure if that will prevent me from voting in the primaries or not. Just because I side more with third parties doesn't mean I'm not going to consider voting republican. In a presidential election I more than likely will, because the third parties never win those.

 

Look what the GOP did, attacking Richard Murdock over articulating the beliefs of most Hoosier Christians concerning abortion.
now the sell out RINO Repub Senator Lugar has been replaced by a South Bend Liberal Cathaholic Dem.
All that work in the primary, shot down the weekend before the general. Mitch Daniels was comissioned to put out the hit.
So much for party loyalty, in the great GOP.

 

One thing I'd point out is that someone may not necessarily consider themselves as always siding with one party.

 

Former State Treasurer Richard Mourdock self-destructed by his ill-advised remarks on rape. He couldn't keep his mouth shut and he spoke false theology.

 

Fair question...but that would be matters concerning specific churches. A member of another church could not vote for something in a church he's not a part of.

Voting in national and state elections affects and involves everybody, it is the business of any citizen who is of legal voting age.
For example, I am personally of the opinion that the only way to get a libertarian leaning candidate in the Presidential office is to go through the Republican Party. But how can he get much of a chance in the election if those who share my opinion and identify as third party cannot vote in the republican primaries? In this way the system is kinda stacked against the libertarian-leaning candidates who are running in the Republican Party.

I mean, I see what you're saying in a sense, but I'd argue that closed primaries only keep the whole two party system thing going. I'd like to see some of the third party leaning people have a chance.

 

For the record, when the GOP began in Ripon, Wisconsin, they were very much a 3rd party. However, they knocked out the Whig Party and the rest is history.