CBC: Open Primaries Dilute Minority Voting Strength

[bigtree]

...one important reason black voters choose to coalesce behind the Democratic party is the influence their votes carry in our deliberations and legislative efforts.

Moreover, it's only been since redistricting changes in the '80's that we've experienced the election of larger numbers of black candidates to Congress. Changing the rules to accommodate the run of a Democratic candidate who relies on independents and republicans to fill out their vote totals is a slap in the face of a vulnerable, yet vital, constituency of black voters and the candidates they choose to represent their communities.


RiotWomenn ‏@RiotWomennn 6h6 hours ago
Democratic Caucus of Black Congress. Caucus goes on the record supporting Superdelegates & against open primaries

[Duckhunter935]

1. I like Oklahoma

And how they worked it. Semi open. Independent registered voters can vote in the Democratic primary.

I guess there are not minority independent voters

[JonLeibowitz]

3. +1

[bigtree]

4. not many black voters in Oklahoma

...which is why I'm fine with individual states deciding how they choose to elect delegates.

What we don't need are top-down solutions which accommodate outsiders to the disadvantage of our traditional Democratic constituency. There's nothing stopping those voters from joining the party, and our upheld right to free-association demands the party respect the wishes of those constituencies to maintain our primaries for Democrats only.

[Duckhunter935]

12. You would be surprised how many there are

[bigtree]

25. I'm not in isolation

...so no surprise here.

What (you say) works in Oklahoma may not work somewhere else. Still, I wouldn't use Montana as a model for states and districts where, for instance, minority voters made up a clear majority of the Democratic vote in this primary.

[Garrett78]

30. Latinos and African Americans make up more than 16% of OK's population.

I have far less objection to open or semi-open primaries than I do to caucuses. Caucuses absolutely need to be done away with.

[bigtree]

31. point is

...citing what works in Oklahoma as a model for reform does nothing to address the impact of open primaries in states in which minority voters made up a far greater percentage in this primary.

The issue that's being addressed here is the Sanders convention initiative to make all primaries open. Including it's impact on states where that would disenfranchise by diluting the minority vote, there's the prospect that the top-down, one-size-fits-all proposal might not suit Oklahoma.

States have the constitutional right to decide the method they send delegates to respective party conventions. The entire notion of the DNC deciding this is at odds with that state prerogative.

[Garrett78]

33. I don't necessarily disagree, but it's tough to justify not allowing "independents" to participate.

Most "independents" are party loyalists. The unfortunate thing about open primaries is that they allow people to participate who simply want to manipulate the results and have no intention of supporting that party's nominee. But if there was any one thing I'd do away with it'd be caucuses.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that 16% is pretty substantial. And that's just Latinos and African Americans. Native Americans make up 8.6% of OK's population. More than a quarter of the state's population isn't white.

[okieinpain]

34. +1 n/t.

[Duckhunter935]

39. True nt

[democrattotheend]

37. That's the California rule as well, right?

[JonLeibowitz]

2. 62% of superdelegates are white, 58% are male.

[uponit7771]

20. Then it sounds proportionate relative to US population... SD's sound like an even better idea

[Else You Are Mad]

5. I believe that a reasonable...

National standard deadline for joining a party before a primary would be the answer. Make it a nationwide rule that the deadline to register is week or so before each primary/caucus. That would set a brightside rule that would clear up confusion of when the deadline is & it would keep the primaries closed.

[longship]

6. Closed primaries are practically impossible in 20+ states.

which have no partisan voter registration.

There is no way to have a closed primary in these states without disenfranchising voters. I will staunchly stand against such closed primary positions here.

Open presidential primaries everywhere! Let everybody vote!

[NurseJackie]

7. I hadn't thought about this before. Glad someone's pointing it out ...

... we should ELIMINATE OPEN PRIMARIES completely. (And caucuses too.)

[John Poet]

22. Get Democratic control of all 50 state governments,

and then you could close all primaries-- presuming you could get those state governments to go along. The National Democratic Party can't do it-- they can't even mandate that a state spend taxpayer money to hold a primary at all.

[obamanut2012]

8. They do

They also allow non-Party members to elect spoiler nominees. I am 100% against them.

[TCJ70]

9. Not if everyone voted in primaries on the same day...

...Say, May 15th, all primaries happen. Then everyone can have the opportunity to see the debates, national exposure, etc. It would discourage the practically non-existent "spoiler" problem since people would be more compelled to vote for their preference.

[obamanut2012]

10. Nope, no open primaries

It still works the same way. I'm left of the Dems, but I register as one so I can vote in the Dem primaries.

[eastwestdem]

16. Agreed!! nt

[Armstead]

19. That would require a heluva lot of people dumping their preferred candidates...

...just to muck up the opposing party.

[geek tragedy]

11. I'm with them on open primaries, but the superdelegate argument is less convincing

given that they themselves are all superdelegates

[Vattel]

13. Superdelegates should be eliminated. Closed primaries would be okay if registration

could occur at the last minute (not like NY!).

[B Calm]

14. Primary elections are paid for by TAX PAYERS! That said alone, they should all be open.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. I prefer closed primaries but think that should be left to the party in each state to decide

I think open primaries defeat the entire purpose of actually having an organized party. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Nobody has ever accused the Democratic party of being organized.

I am just fine with getting rid of Superdelegates. I've read the arguments "but Trump!" and while a prospect like that would be alarming, I can see no ethical reason to usurp the vote of the people. Also: there is the fact that even "bound" delegates still have the power to defect and become "faithless" delegates if the situation were particularly dire. I trust Democrats. I trust Democratic Party voters.

[Armstead]

18. People can vote however they want in the general. Why not primaries to choose the candidates?

Does Democracy only go so far?

[Ash_F]

21. Maybe. Maybe not.

But diluting Dem chances of winning the GE because they don't have a finger on the pulse of the electorate is a big mistake.

[Skid Rogue]

23. This needs to be left up...

to the Dem Party in each State. NY has a vastly different political landscape than Alabama. What's right for one, may not be right for the other. Also, it's not just the Presidential Primaries that must be considered. Often the reason for closed Primaries is to stop shenanigans on a local level.

[bigtree]

24. »

[BlueCaliDem]

26. I stand with the Congressional Black Caucus on this. In fact, after reading the threads and what

changes to the primary rules can and cannot do depending on a State, I've come to the conclusion that there should be NO changes, and the system should be left alone.

The system, as is, gave us Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, so why should we now all be up in arms in changing anything?

Just leave everything in place...maybe just get rid of caucuses. Caucuses are undemocratic and they disenfranchise the infirmed, the elderly, the working, and PoC especially in those places where the weather can work against a person who'd want to sign up and take part in a caucus.

[democrattotheend]

38. What about same day registration?

Can you at least get on board with that? Obviously, that is not something the party can change by itself, but I would like to see the party make a big push for same day registration in every state.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Election-day registration might work in States with a smaller populace than say, California. But we

have automatic registration here in the golden State. When a person applies for a CDL or ID and is an American citizen, they're automatically registered to vote. It's also more cost-effective.

So I'd prefer auto-registration over election-day registration.

[redgreenandblue]

27. Closed primaries are voter suppression. As is requiring registration in the first

place. At least historically, requiring registration came along with literacy tests etc. as far as I know.

[bigtree]

28. there's nothing 'suppressing' folks from registering as a Democrat

...and courts have long upheld the right of individuals to associate with whomever they please and applied that 'free-association' right to party primaries.

Of course, there isn't any political affiliation requirement for the general election.

[ismnotwasm]

29. I don't understand why anyone thinks open primaries is a good idea

K&R

[randome]

36. It's a dumb idea and wasting time and political capital on this non-issue is dumb, too.

[Buzz cook]

32. Same day registration would solve part of the problem

If a person could register to vote and declare a party preference on the day of the election it would solve the problem of exclusion.

[randome]

35. So everyone gets to vote for the Green Party, the GOP, the Democratic Party and so on, right?

How many votes does one person get under this scheme? Or are you going to limit it to one vote per person? Hm. Interesting. How would you be able to tell that unless someone was...say, registered for one party or the other?

[JRLeft]

41. I agree with closed primaries, but not because of the influence factor.

We black people seem to have little influence over the party.