Open vs Closed primaries

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    Should the goverment REQUIRE a political party to have a open primary?

    What do you think of non-partism elections.
    One State wants to have such an election - and then have a run-off for the top two candidates.

    Indepenent voters are demanding this.
     
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    A primiary is for a political party to choose ITS candidate for an office.

    The "R" have no business choosing the "D" and the "D" should not determine who runs as a "R"

    What would you do, if the local county said that members of the local Methodist church should have the right to vote in a Baptist church meeting who is voting on a pastor!

    Independents are upset because they can not vote in a primiary. Then JOIN a political party- or start your own political party.
     
  4. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Closed primaries perpetuate a two party system that is corrupt, broken, and in need of massive overhaul...or a third party.
     
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,227
    Likes Received:
    615
    Federal government? No.
    State government? It's their prerogative.
     
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,227
    Likes Received:
    615
    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.
     
  7. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #7 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 15, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2014
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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....
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    1) non-members - in some States/commonwealths are permitted to vote in a party they are not affilated with.
    2) Most registered members of a party have no ideal what is going on. More people need to get invovled


    On what basis? Basically, a political party is a private organization - and should be able to make its own decisions.

    You are thinking only of Presidental elections - some States / Commonwealths do bind the deleglates - others - only on the first ballot - When is the last time that a Presidental candidate was NOT determined before the national convention.

    Remember - there are also primiaries for local elections as well. The party leadership may determine the best candidate, but often a primiary will change that.

    I cannot speak for other States / commonwealths, but here in NY, a person may NOT run on as a candidate without the approval of the party - if he is not a member of that party. In addition, he must be a declared member of the party 13 months prior to the election. For example, if a Democrat wanted to run for Congress in the Repbulican primiary this Sep he would have had to change his registeration no later than Oct 2, 2013. The one execption would be if you moved into NY (Think Hillary Clinton)

    One other note: NY is a Fusion state - Minor parties usually endorse a major party candidate - Conservative Party -Republician. Working Familes will normally endorse the Democrat candidate. The Independece party usually will go 60/40 for the Republicans. (In NY there are no "Independents" - they are considered "non-enrolled")

    Bottom line - let a political party make its own decision
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    thats what a lot of people say - but I contend for the most party - they DO vote based on party line
     
  11. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
  12. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    Thing is, to my understanding being a part of a third party political party won't allow you to vote in the primaries.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    That depends on the State/commonwealth.

    It should be up to the Party - NOT the goverment.

    NY is a closed state - but my understanding is that the Independence Party of NY does allow non members to vote in their primiary. (of course, you can only vote in one primary)

    I am on a board with some members of the Constitution Party of NY - but they are registered as a Repubublican so they can vote in R primaries and be involved local R committees. - I do not respect those so called members of the Constitution Party. They demand that we take a stand on the issues and not compromise. Yet, that they are compromising their stand by stradling two political parties
     
  14. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    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.
     
  15. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
    #15 prophet, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  16. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    One thing I'd point out is that someone may not necessarily consider themselves as always siding with one party.
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.

     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,126
    Likes Received:
    220
    1) check your State/Commonwealth laws
    2) that is what I like about Fusion laws -

    Remember a closed primary only allows a party member to vote in the PRIMARY! - In the General election - you are free to vote for whomever you choose.
    In fact, even when I was town Chairman of my town Conservative Party I did not always vote for the endorsed Conservative Party candidate -


    I reask my previous question - would you want a Methodist voting for your Baptist church pastor?
     
  19. questdriven

    questdriven
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    33
    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.
     
    #19 questdriven, Jan 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2014
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...