Non partisan so posting here: I think that all democratic primaries and caucuses should be closed

[Tropics_Dude83]

There's just the potential for too much mischief from people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or whoever. Heck, even an independent group could try to subvert the process.

I think that democrats should have no say whatsoever in republican primaries/caucuses and republicans and independents no say whatsoever in ours. Trying to hijack another party's nomination just isn't cool.

I could see letting independents who last voted republican in 2nd to last presidential election being allowed to vote but that's it.

I personally know someone from TX who was going to specifically vote in the TX primary for someone she thought would be the weaker dem. And she is a radical right wing nutjob. Again, not cool.

Like I said, I could accept true independents who haven't voted (R) in a long time but other than that, the primaries should be closed and let the chips fall where they may,

[galadrium]

1. I agree

Thats why Clinton won in Ohio, right wingers were saying to vote for her for weeks on the radio. Why should republicans pick our candidate?

[tyne]

2. The only problem

is that Indies make up about a third of the population now. Why shouldn't they be able to choose whichever candidate they want in the GE?

[galadrium]

4. Because everyone would just change to independent

That way they could vote for either, same problem.

[Tropics_Dude83]

5. OK that I could agree

A person who was a registered independent and did not switch within the last 6 months from republican to independent would be allowed to vote in my system.

Oh and by the way, I big F You to Fat Rush.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

7. Why should they have the right to choose a party's nominee

when they refuse to affiliate with a party?

This makes no sense to me...

[Captain Angry]

9. That works for me.

I won't register for either party in my state, and don't deserve the right to choose their candidate.

Democrats don't even run for office in my part of the state, so why bother? I'd probably get audited or have my house vandalized when they ran the report of registered voters in the county.

When I move away, and I can actually have a candidate that's not a write-in, I'll register appropriately.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

10. You seriously think you'd be audited?

That sucks!

:-(

[Captain Angry]

11. As the audit would have to come from the state, realistically, no.

But my dad started getting audited every year after he started writing letters to the editor of the state's newspaper. He has a Masters in physics, and 40+ years in government service, so he's not exactly a crackpot, yet he started getting harassed.

So, precedents are already set.

[Old and In the Way]

8. They can choose in the GE....but they shouldn't influence our choice in the primary.

I'm in a caucus state (Maine). While I enjoy aspects of the system, ie speaking up for the candidate you favor, I think it should be closed (Maine's caucuses are...you have to be registered to caucus). Open primaries/causes are bad news, too much opportunity to distort the will of the Democratic majority. Primaries seem to be geared more to privacy and ease of vote...caucuses are more open and time consuming affairs. Personally, I think caucuses can be a better political community building vehicle that promotes more activism, which is important for State and local elections.

[Tropics_Dude83]

3. Yep and same goes for our side

Remember Michigan. I'm sorry if I had lived there, I could not have crossed over to vote for Mitt Romney in an attempt to mess their process up. Not right for me to do it and not right for them.

[Beregond2]

6. Primarys

I agree. It makes no sense for non-party people to have a voice in who the party's candidates are. Do the Mason's get to vote for officers of the Elks? I have had this arguement with my brother many times. He says: "Why shouldn't I be able to vote for whatever candidate I choose, regardless of party?" I reply: "You can; in the general election!"

[KharmaTrain]

12. You Run Into Disenfranchising Voters

Setting any standards of current voting based on previous voting could easily be contested in court. While a state can determine rules for each election cycle, I think you'd stand one hell of a case if you discriminated against who could vote in which primaries and how someone could vote in a general election.

I doubt there was much "Rushbo" effect in yesterday's primaries...it would require too much of the wingnuts. In Texas they would not only have to vote in the primary during the day but come back at night at sit in on the caucuses...and then they'd have to swallow their tongues lest not to let others in the caucus know what they were doing. Most dittoheads could barely get out of the chair to get a beer...and many won't bother voting in November.

In the past I've crossed over...in one area, there was no Democratic party and the GOOP primary WAS the election.

The big game is November and if GOOPers feel like voting for Democrats or are forced to...c'est la vie.

[CC]

13. I am with you in that

I feel if you can not commit to my party then why the hell should you be allowed to vote for my party's candidate? I live in a closed primary state and hope it stays this way.