About independents voting in a party primaries

[question everything]

It seems that both Iowa and New Hampshire and, perhaps, other states, allow independent voters to vote in a primary. Or even for Republicans to vote in a Democratic primary and vice versa.

I am not comfortable with this. I think that we, the party members, should select our candidates. If independent voters wish to participate, too, let them change party affiliation and then vote.

It is not just the nefarious intentions of outsiders to create chaos in the elections results. It is a simple act of expressing allegiance to the party and standing up and be counted.

This may not happen this year, with the field wide open, but how do we know how many Republicans in 2004, when Bush was practically unopposed, tried to change the results in Democratic primaries? Why do parties allow this?

[harmonicon]

1. I see it differently

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a Democrat in any "official" context. In Michigan, you simply ask for a Democratic or Republican primary ballot, and can only vote in one of the primaries. I've always just asked for the Democratic ballot, and these records are open, so my preference is no secret to anyone. I suppose I'm going on good faith that others would do the same, but what of the (possibly) mythical "swing" voter? Shouldn't they be able to look at the candidates from both parties and decide whose primary they'd like to take part in? I think doing otherwise is alienating in some way - I'd like for as many potential voters as possible to be involved in the democratic process, and with having only two large parties, requiring official party affiliation to vote seems to go against that idea. If we had more large/nation-wide parties, perhaps I'd feel differently. I'm a die-hard Democratic voter, but having an official party affiliation without holding political office kind of gives me the willies, to be honest.

[TeamJordan23]

2. Isn't the majority of the country Indep. now anyways? Also, can you name one instance of chaos?

If the Repubs were doing such thing in 2004, Dean would have our nominee.

[question everything]

4. Perhaps chaos was the wrong terminology

but I can see an instance when Republicans with an incumbent president will vote for the weakest Democratic candidate.

As a matter of fact, I think that this was one of the dirty tricks of Nixon in 1972, not necessarily through primaries, but weakening Muskie, who may have carried more than just MA and DC.

[TeamJordan23]

3. - delete - dupe

[Renew Deal]

5. I have mixed feelings.

First, it depends on state law. In NY, it has to be the way described. I feel like Indpendents are generally truly indpenendent. States like Iowa and NH breed indipendent cultures. I kind of like the way NH does it. NH voters can vote in EITHER race. That means that they can vote for the person they like the most.

[sniffa]

7. as an (i) in Mass. i get to vote in either

up until this year (going into effect for this primary) indies could vote in either primary, but that would automatically register you in that party. if you wanted to remain (i) you had to inform the little old ladies to make a note next to your name to remain (i).

this year and beyond you remain an (i) regardless.

[LWolf]

6. If the election system is reformed

to give every candidate an equal place at the table, an equal amount of public money, private money from ANY source banned, polls banned, and a required equal amount of neutral media coverage, I'd support closed primaries.

As long as the "big two" dominate the system, I think everyone should be invited to participate.

Just me.

I'd rather see elections more about issues than parties.