Would mandatory open primaries give us better candidates?

[Pwns]

The way I see it, both party's candidates have to reinvent themselves when they are running for the nomination and again if they win the nomination. That's why Obama scared the living s*** out of so many people in 2008 and why Romney did the same thing this year. That's why republicans were able to make Kerry look like a waffling, dithering fool in 2004 and why the donks were able to do that with Romney. That's why many promises candidates make fall through and just make people even more cynical about politics. There are just too many dingbat partisans voting in primaries.

So I propose that we not only have open primaries in every state, but make voting in the primary mandatory for voting for the president in the general election.

[89Hen]

Wait a minute. By open primaries, are you saying people get to vote for the other party's candidates in the primaries? Fuck no. Maryland would have declared Jimmy McMillan the R winner.

[MSUDuo]

Don't some states already have that? I know in Missouri you can pick either one and it played a part in how the US Senator race for Missouri turned out in November

[GannonFan]

I don't think making everything an open primary will really have any effect. If you're still picking a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate for the general elections in the Fall, you're going to still have two different parties looking to advance their candidates. Sure, you may have some people cross party lines to vote for someone they really like (and you'll get some people crossing party line to pick a weaker candidate therefore giving their party's candidate an easier opponent in the Fall) but you're going to still have two candidates that speak to the core of each of their party's.

As for the making it a requirement to vote in the primaries if you want to vote in the Fall I don't like that one bit (and I vote all the time in every election). If people don't want to vote, that's their freedom to make that choice. Vote, don't vote - it's entirely up to the person. I don't like arbitrary restrictions about a person's character or habits impacting their ability to vote. It's not my business if they vote or not, so I shouldn't be concerned over whether they do or not.

[GSUhooligan]

Ranked primaries would be better.

[UNI88]

Ranked primaries would be better.

Single primaries where the top two candidates face each other in the general election? In a heavily Donk or Conk district you would likely have two candidates from the same party running against each other. It would probably give centrist candidates a much better chance.

[Pwns]

I don't think making everything an open primary will really have any effect. If you're still picking a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate for the general elections in the Fall, you're going to still have two different parties looking to advance their candidates. Sure, you may have some people cross party lines to vote for someone they really like (and you'll get some people crossing party line to pick a weaker candidate therefore giving their party's candidate an easier opponent in the Fall) but you're going to still have two candidates that speak to the core of each of their party's.

As for the making it a requirement to vote in the primaries if you want to vote in the Fall I don't like that one bit (and I vote all the time in every election). If people don't want to vote, that's their freedom to make that choice. Vote, don't vote - it's entirely up to the person. I don't like arbitrary restrictions about a person's character or habits impacting their ability to vote. It's not my business if they vote or not, so I shouldn't be concerned over whether they do or not.

If the republican and democratic candidates are on the same ballot, thene everyone is voting and not just those who identify with the party or cross party lines.

You don't neccesarily have to make people vote in the primaries, and I realize it would never happen because we have fetishedized having as many people voting as possible no matter how poorly informed they are (unless of course you are a felon), but it would create incentive for people to actually vote when there are more choices.

[Vidav]

In Montana we can vote for either party during the primary. You don't have to declare anything. Just that you get two ballots and can only complete one of them. So a Republican can vote the Democrat ballot if they want.

[CAA Flagship]

Bump.

I wonder how much bullshit will take place in the upcoming primaries.

The link below shows what states have open or closed primaries.

https://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/l ... primaries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here is what happened in 2012:

In the 2012 Republican primaries, for example, Democratic activists launched a somewhat organized effort to prolong the GOP nomination process by voting for Rick Santorum, an underdog, in states that held open primaries.

That effort, called Operation Hilarity, was organized by activist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the founder and publisher of Daily Kos, a popular blog among liberals and Democrats. "The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue," Moulitsas wrote.

In 2008, many Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary because they felt she had less of a chance of defeating presumed Republican nominee John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Campaign ... nition.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SuperHornet]

I don't think making everything an open primary will really have any effect. If you're still picking a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate for the general elections in the Fall, you're going to still have two different parties looking to advance their candidates. Sure, you may have some people cross party lines to vote for someone they really like (and you'll get some people crossing party line to pick a weaker candidate therefore giving their party's candidate an easier opponent in the Fall) but you're going to still have two candidates that speak to the core of each of their party's.

As for the making it a requirement to vote in the primaries if you want to vote in the Fall I don't like that one bit (and I vote all the time in every election). If people don't want to vote, that's their freedom to make that choice. Vote, don't vote - it's entirely up to the person. I don't like arbitrary restrictions about a person's character or habits impacting their ability to vote. It's not my business if they vote or not, so I shouldn't be concerned over whether they do or not.

That's not quite how open primaries work, at least not in Cali, where they were recently implemented. You're NOT guaranteed R-vs-D general elections in the Fall. You get the two candidates with the most primary votes, EVEN IF BOTH ARE FROM THE SAME PARTY. We found that out the hard way with a ton of D-vs-D races the last time around. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool R in that situation, it's like picking the lesser of two weevils.

Open primaries are STUPID.

[Pwns]

The way I see it, both party's candidates have to reinvent themselves when they are running for the nomination and again if they win the nomination. That's why Obama scared the living s*** out of so many people in 2008 and why Romney did the same thing this year. That's why republicans were able to make Kerry look like a waffling, dithering fool in 2004 and why the donks were able to do that with Romney. That's why many promises candidates make fall through and just make people even more cynical about politics. There are just too many dingbat partisans voting in primaries.

So I propose that we not only have open primaries in every state, but make voting in the primary mandatory for voting for the president in the general election.

Almost 4 years after I made this post, this is more valid than ever.

Trump versus Clinton, folks.

USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!

Can we now acknowledge how effed up our system of primaries are? Not only should all primaries be open, Is say everyone should be able to cast votes for both parties.

Or we can bury our heads in the sand and keep getting s***ty candidates every election year.

[89Hen]

The way I see it, both party's candidates have to reinvent themselves when they are running for the nomination and again if they win the nomination. That's why Obama scared the living s*** out of so many people in 2008 and why Romney did the same thing this year. That's why republicans were able to make Kerry look like a waffling, dithering fool in 2004 and why the donks were able to do that with Romney. That's why many promises candidates make fall through and just make people even more cynical about politics. There are just too many dingbat partisans voting in primaries.

So I propose that we not only have open primaries in every state, but make voting in the primary mandatory for voting for the president in the general election.

Almost 4 years after I made this post, this is more valid than ever.

Trump versus Clinton, folks.

USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!

Can we now acknowledge how effed up our system of primaries are? Not only should all primaries be open, Is say everyone should be able to cast votes for both parties.

Or we can bury our heads in the sand and keep getting s***ty candidates every election year.

Who do you think we would have facing off today if we had open primaries and how would they be better?

Cruz v Sanders?

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah, I'm still not convinced that open primaries are good. I need to hear more of this argument.

[kalm]

How would you limit who gets on the general ballot? One candidate from each registered political party and independents? If that's the case, I'm totally cool with this. If one party has the two most popular candidates, one can chose to run as an indy or join another party.

[UNI88]

Definitely worth considering and I'm not sure limiting it to 1 candidate per party is the best approach especially with Congressional and state legislature positions. Illinois is extremely gerrymandered so that the districts tend to be hard core Democrat or hard core Republican. Open primaries would lead to many D vs. D and R vs. R general elections but would give the voter the option of voting for a candidate from the other party who is probably more centrist than the likely majority party candidate in a closed primary and has a better chance of winning than a candidate from their party would have had. It would also allow give candidates who weren't as beholden to the party elites a greater opportunity to win. It could lessen the power of the fringes and the party establishment.

Super Horny might not like voting for the more centrist Democrat in California but I would rather have a centrist D with a chance than an R with no chance and vice versa.

[UNI88]

Quite question for CSers - who pays for/runs the primaries in your state? In Illinois, major party primaries are run by County Clerks' offices. They're also closed. Why are my tax dollars going to fund a primary election for a private or semi-private organization? If my tax dollars are being used to fund these primaries why am I only allowed to participate if I'm a registered D or R?

IMO, the parties should reimburse the counties for the costs (funding, staffing, etc.) of running the primaries or open them up to all voters.

[Pwns]

Almost 4 years after I made this post, this is more valid than ever.

Trump versus Clinton, folks.

USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!

Can we now acknowledge how effed up our system of primaries are? Not only should all primaries be open, Is say everyone should be able to cast votes for both parties.

Or we can bury our heads in the sand and keep getting s***ty candidates every election year.

Who do you think we would have facing off today if we had open primaries and how would they be better?

Cruz v Sanders?

Cruz versus Sanders wouldn't be that great but would still be 100 times better than Hillary and Trump.

[Skjellyfetti]

Quite question for CSers - who pays for/runs the primaries in your state? In Illinois, major party primaries are run by County Clerks' offices. They're also closed. Why are my tax dollars going to fund a primary election for a private or semi-private organization? If my tax dollars are being used to fund these primaries why am I only allowed to participate if I'm a registered D or R?

IMO, the parties should reimburse the counties for the costs (funding, staffing, etc.) of running the primaries or open them up to all voters.

I don't know about the rest of your post.

But, Illinois has open primaries.

[CAA Flagship]

Quite question for CSers - who pays for/runs the primaries in your state? In Illinois, major party primaries are run by County Clerks' offices. They're also closed. Why are my tax dollars going to fund a primary election for a private or semi-private organization? If my tax dollars are being used to fund these primaries why am I only allowed to participate if I'm a registered D or R?

IMO, the parties should reimburse the counties for the costs (funding, staffing, etc.) of running the primaries or open them up to all voters.

I don't know about the rest of your post.

But, Illinois has open primaries.

I think it is "partial-open", which means there are caveats.

[Skjellyfetti]

Illinois utilizes an open primary system. Voters do not have to register with a party, but they do have to choose, publicly, which party's ballot they will vote on at the primary election.

[Ibanez]

Illinois utilizes an open primary system. Voters do not have to register with a party, but they do have to choose, publicly, which party's ballot they will vote on at the primary election.

That's how SC is and I think it's great. For someone that's independent, it doesn't shut me out of the elections.

[89Hen]

Who do you think we would have facing off today if we had open primaries and how would they be better?

Cruz v Sanders?

Cruz versus Sanders wouldn't be that great but would still be 100 times better than Hillary and Trump.

Why better? Serious question. Both are further to their party's extreme.

[CAA Flagship]

Illinois utilizes an open primary system. Voters do not have to register with a party, but they do have to choose, publicly, which party's ballot they will vote on at the primary election.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- ... types.aspx

Partially Open

This system permits voters to cross party lines, but they must either publicly declare their ballot choice or their ballot selection may be regarded as a form of registration with the corresponding party.

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, they're certainly not closed. He can vote for either party.

[UNI88]

Well, they're certainly not closed. He can vote for either party.

My bad. They're not closed or open, they're mixed in that I would have to select which party I wanted to vote for and that choice would be a matter of public record.

The underlying question is still valid, should government resources be used to staff & pay for primary elections for the major parties?