Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

GSUhooligan wrote:Ranked primaries would be better.

GannonFan wrote: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.

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.

GannonFan wrote: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.

Pwns wrote: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.

Pwns wrote:

Pwns wrote: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 wrote:

Pwns wrote:
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?

UNI88 wrote: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.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

UNI88 wrote: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.

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.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

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.

Pwns wrote:

89Hen wrote: 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 wrote:

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.

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