Closed Primaries or Open primaries?

[Tiggeroshii]

Which is better?

15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Closed
	11 (73%)
	Open
	4 (27%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[still_one]

1. Why should non-Democrats have a say in who the Democratic nominee is? That is the argument to do

away with political parties, and I do NOT subscribe to that at all

[NurseJackie]

4. I know. I don't subscribe to it either.

I know. I don't subscribe to it either. After all, nobody is keeping anyone out. They are keeping themselves out. It doesn't take too much effort to register as a Democrat, and to know the rules in advance.

Get them involved by having them register as Democrats... have some "ownership" and pride and sense of belonging... and less of an thoughtless impulse-buy. If they can't make the minimum effort to register as a Democrat, then there's really no compelling reason for me to believe that they have any business meddling in the party decision-making process.

Every year we hear the same group of woefully ill-informed malcontents claiming that the Democratic party is "disenfranchising" them. What makes them think that non-Democrats have the RIGHT to vote in our primary process?

I'm amused at how many people boastfully claim to be "Independents" or "Unaffiliated" because they hate the Democratic party and everything it stands for and because they think we're "corrupt" or "feeble" (etc etc). Yet when election time comes around and it's time for the Democrats to choose our nominee... they're banging down the doors trying to get in and participate with the party that they've continually smeared and denigrated for the past four years.

[still_one]

9. +++

[HerbChestnut]

2. Open.

Involve more people in the process, expand voter turnout.

[rockfordfile]

34. So you want right-wing pos to mess with a primary?

[HerbChestnut]

36. Let's be realistic, the vast majority of people won't vote in an election just to mess with it.

Closed primaries suppress the vote.

[Celerity]

41. semi-closed solves this issue and still allow the tens of millions of indies to participate

see my posts down thread

[aikoaiko]

37. Hearts for the truth.

[HerbChestnut]

39. Hey, thanks!

[Just_Vote_Dem]

3. Closed

Make it as difficult as possible for Repubs to meddle.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Voting should be made easier not harder

You shouldn't have to go through a complicated process to vote for who you want.

[Happy Hoosier]

8. Ummm... just register for the party.

Not complicated. If you want to vote in the Democratic primary, register as a Democrat.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. If it is so easy, then how could that be a barrier to keeping people from meddling?

[Happy Hoosier]

21. If they register to vote as Democrats, then vote away.

I don’t see what is wrong with parties choosing their own candidate. Anyone who wants a say is welcome, but they have to be willing to commit enough to actual register, IMO. And the actual registration is a mental barrier for some GrOPers.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. So we punish those who want to stay out of the fray by registering independent or third party?

If we want those people to come into the fold, we have to include them in our process. Fact is that almost half are not registered to either party, and about that number is consistent with those who don't participate in the general election. One idea is that if we include them in our primary process, they are more likely to participate in the general election.

[Happy Hoosier]

25. It's not punishment...

No organization I have ever been in allows non-members a voice in who we select as leaders. It’s nuts. Wanna join? C’mon in. Wanna stay “above the fray?” Wait till November.

[Tiggeroshii]

26. But this is a democracy not "an organization"

Not the same as what you seem to be describing anyways. The two party system is the basis for our democracy. Voting is a right not a privilege, and people have a right to participate in the process in the most -not least, accessible way.

[Happy Hoosier]

30. This is a political party!!

How can a party define itself if anyone can put their oar in. It’s very important to me that party nominees reflect the membership... not people who don’t care enough to join. If they don’t wanna join the party, they can wait till the general election. FFS....

[Tiggeroshii]

32. This is American democracy, defined by the parties which are defined by the voters. By definition,

our system is made up by "anybody who can put their oar in," otherwise we are not a democracy. Our government is made up that way, and it would turn out much better if our major parties were more, not less, inclusive.

[Demsrule86]

14. All it does is make it easier for the GOP to fuck with us...I saw it in Georgia where we finally

fielded a candidate for some state office who had a real chance...and the GOP jumped in and made sure someone else won the primary.

[NurseJackie]

18. Nobody is preventing anyone from voting. It's not difficult to choose a party preference.

You shouldn't have to go through a complicated process

What complicated about it? Nobody is preventing anyone from voting. It's not difficult to choose a party preference.

"Oh no, it's SO HARD to choose a party preference. It's SO COMPLICATED!"

Anyone who doesn't want to make a minimal commitment by self-declaring themselves a member of the Democratic party can just wait until November. It's as simple as that.

The only comparison I can think of would be like the "rebels" (or Goth) in High School who refused to buy a ticket to prom (or who refused to comply with dress codes) ... so instead they stand outside the gymnasium, loudly complaining about the playlist, shouting their song requests, and griping that they can't get in without a ticket. Oh how unfair the world is to those who don't want to play by the rules. Such a tragedy.

GMAFB!

Just register. Just declare. Just play by the party rules and you're golden. It's not complicated, it's not hard.

[SCantiGOP]

6. Open

SC does not have party registration. There have been several elections where there were not only no contested Dem races, but several offices had no Dem even running. At least I could vote in their primary and choose the least obnoxious repub to take the office.

[Demsrule86]

16. And the GOP is prepared to fuck with us there...all over the news...maybe you support the candidate

who benefits but that won't always be the case. Only Democrats should be able to vote in a primary.

[Voltaire2]

7. Depends on how open.

I like what NH does: undeclared voters can vote in either primary. Pulling independents into your primary is a good way to move them over to your party in the ge.

[ecstatic]

11. Absolutely closed! trump is calling on his minions to infiltrate our

primaries. The DNC needs to hold an emergency meeting and lock our shit up now! Not 2024. Now.

[Demsrule86]

19. I agree...let's say that EW might come in second in Carolina or even first...by voting for Sanders,

the GOP makes sure that doesn't happen...and they are voting for whom they perceive to be the weakest candidate.

[Celerity]

12. Semi-closed

As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.

Opposing party members cannot vote in another party's primary, nor can they switch over unless it done well before the primary date, to avoid Operation Chaos style shenanigans.

[PAMod]

17. This is a reasonable compromise.

I’m in.

[Celerity]

31. it's the most common type in the US, 15 states use it, 12 are open, 12 are closed, 11 another type

I vote in California, where we use a jungle primary system.

NH, for instance, is 40% indie. To deny them a choice in a primary will backfire in the general. There absolutely, however needs to be clear rules to stop Rethugs and Dems from crossing over to cause chaos. Whether it it helps or hurts us, it is wrong at it's core and should not occur. I also am a HUGE paper ballot proponent, and am against all the Rethug tricks of voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering, and manipulation of all types. They are a massive threat to our democracy.

[aikoaiko]

38. I can live with this, too.

[Celerity]

40. +100000

[Laelth]

13. Close them!

I don't want Republicans meddling with our candidate-selection processes.

-Laelth

[PAMod]

15. I used to be against them for the reasons cited here.

Now I see them as a way to force the intractable extremists back to the margins.

Open primaries would force candidates to appeal to a wider audience in the nominating campaign, eliminating the bizarre practice of appeasing the extremists in the spring, and then trying to cobble together a winning campaign in the fall.

[Demsrule86]

22. Nonsense...that is not what happens...in Carolina and other states the GOP will vote for who Trump

tells them to...gives Trump input and may very well decide who the Democratic nominee will be.

[PAMod]

29. So just make them "open" for non affiliated voters

Doing it the way we do now is obviously flawed. To keep doing it this way and expecting a better result isn’t very smart.

[Celerity]

42. that is what is called semi-closed and is what I favour. I is also the most common type now

see my other posts

cheers

[Cal Carpenter]

20. Open, or at least allow people to remain unaffiliated and choose which ballot on primary day

I say this not so much in relation to the Presidential election, but for our local politics.

In my town, the primary *is* the general election, for all intents and purposes. It is a very Democratic town with two distinct factions of the party. Occasionally an independent will get some traction in the November election, but the primary is crucial in choosing the mayor and most of the city council.

I am not a fan of disenfranchisement or forcing anyone to register for a party in a situation like that.

[Demsrule86]

24. I am absolutely against allowing those who give nothing and do nothing for the party to help decide

who are nominee will be...no 1000 times. I have seen what happens in Ohio.

[Garrett78]

27. This issue is way overblown. Just get rid of caucuses and we'll be fine.

Clinton did better than Sanders in open primaries, and that wouldn't have been the case if the fears expressed by some were warranted.

Too many people now days opt to be non-affiliated to exclude them.

[Tiggeroshii]

28. +10,000

agreed

[Mike Nelson]

33. Democrats should vote...

... for the Democrats. No Republican mischief, as ordered by Trump last night in NH. People should be encouraged to register as Democrats - make it easy to become a Democrat and easy to vote!

[Wounded Bear]

35. We run a jungle, top-two system. Hate it. nt