Should US Presidenial Primaries Be Open?

[DrNewGod]

For those that don't follow US politics too closely, different states handle voicing their opinion on who a political party's presidential nominee should be differently. Some states hold closed primaries, where you may have to be a registered member of the party in order to vote on the candidates of that party. Others hold open primaries, where any registered voter can ask for any party's ballot.

Now, there are at least two lines of thought on this. One is that, since the two major US parties hold a monopoly on opportunity to win the presidency, every citizen deserves a say in who those two parties will nominate for the final contest. Another is that members of one party might seek to influence the primary vote of the other party to ensure their preferred candidate faces a less threatening opponent in the general election.

Your thoughts?

[Tami]

Though I voted closed, I'd be open to a compromise that lets' Unaffiliated/Independents vote in either primary. Primaries are for the parties hosting them. Once a candidate is chosen, then anyone can vote anyway they want in the November General Election.

[Scott Taylor]

California has an open primary, except in presidential elections. It was an idea the Governator pushed forward because of his frustration with deadlocks in the legislature. The way it works is that we can vote for any candidate in the primary and the top two go up for general election. Its intention, at least on paper, was to give more independents a chance. However, in reality it means business as usual with occasional complete partisan locks on elections.

There are ways to still lock out the independents. You will get tons of Democrats and Republicans on a given primary ballot, to the extent that they effectively drown out the independents. Democrats and Republicans can still heavily out-finance the independents. The old guard is still right where it has always been, but now there is a possibility that a primary election can serve as a general election, of sorts. You may see candidates from the same party as the only options on a GE ballot. Just doesn't feel right. Its happened more than once since California changed the law.

So yah, its more representative in theory. But it still favors the two-party system. As long as that is going to happen anyhow, I think open primaries shouldn't happen. Independents, Democrats and Republicans are better represented with closed primaries. Maybe someday an open primary that is more equal will be proposed, but I don't see how when its the two parties in charge who run everything.

[C_Miller]

Open. As long as we have a two party system, closed party primaries are about as undemocratic as a thing can be. We're essentially letting two clubs pick the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Open. As long as we have a two party system, closed party primaries are about as undemocratic as a thing can be. We're essentially letting two clubs pick the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

You can on join those parties and vote for who you want as a candidate. In the UK you have to pay for this privilege. Humans are social animals, and with politics built on coalitions there's a constant need to form into groups, this occurs everywhere. There is no perfect democratic system.

[numberthirty]

You can on join those parties and vote for who you want as a candidate. In the UK you have to pay for this privilege. Humans are social animals, and with politics built on coalitions there's a constant need to form into groups, this occurs everywhere. There is no perfect democratic system.

Trying to throw that in there to minimize the issue that C_Miller brought up is just goofy.

You have a system that citizens just learned set itself up with a really sweet means to get itself out of sexual harassment claims, but "Hey, Let's Just Face It. There's No Perfect Democratic System... Maybe We Could Change The Subject?"

[Steel Inquisitor]

Trying to throw that in there to minimize the issue that C_Miller brought up is just goofy.

You have a system that citizens just learned set itself up with a really sweet means to get itself out of sexual harassment claims, but "Hey, Let's Just Face It. There's No Perfect Democratic System... Maybe We Could Change The Subject?"

I'm not minimising anything, C_Miller is more than welcome to argue for any other democratic system then the one we have.

"Just" learnt? That's playing catch up to people who have followed politics long before those people got excited in '16.

[numberthirty]

I'm not minimising anything, C_Miller is more than welcome to argue for any other democratic system then the one we have.

"Just" learnt? That's playing catch up to people who have followed politics long before those people got excited in '16.

Again...

The lengths to which folks will go to make the "Maybe We Could Change The Subject..." move is hard not to notice.

[4saken1]

I voted closed, but ultimately it is the choice of the Political Parties. Even if a political Party decides 'to hell with a Primary, we're just going to pick our candidate', that is entirely up to them (it's THEIR Party, after all!) and they will likely suffer the blow back from that decision in the General Election. Also, this is a states right issue. Many states' political Parties have their own policies regarding this which are somewhat independent of the wishes of the national Party that they are affiliated with. I would definitely suggest a closed Primary, however, for any Party that is facing an incumbent President for the reason stated. If it was an open Primary, the Party of the sitting President could basically choose their opponent!

[ed2962]

I'm not sure I see the problem with open primaries?

[PwrdOn]

I'm not sure I see the problem with open primaries?

The risk with an open primary is that it forces candidates to be strategic about that phase of the election as well, so rather than just everyone who wants to run putting their hat in the ring, candidates need to be conscious about not splitting the vote up so much that the other party is able to claim both of the top two slots.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Again...

The lengths to which folks will go to make the "Maybe We Could Change The Subject..." move is hard not to notice.

Projection, the only person trying to shut down conversation here is you. You can't even deny what I'm saying is wrong. Next time come up with more engaging statements or people will continue to see right through you.

[Tami]

I'm not sure I see the problem with open primaries?

The biggest risk, in my opinion, is....it's like Russia interfrring with the election. We know that it's right.

We have seen 'Project Chaos' and others trying to vote in primaries of opposing parties simply to give their own candiate an advantage.

Primaries should be for those who actually support one or more candidate a party is running, not for interfering in the opposition so as to gain an outcome more favorable to the candidate of an opposition candidate in the General election.

[DrNewGod]

... I would definitely suggest a closed Primary, however, for any Party that is facing an incumbent President for the reason stated. If it was an open Primary, the Party of the sitting President could basically choose their opponent!

Yeah, this is where I come down. My personal preference would be closed, rank-ordered primaries, rather than one pick to a customer.

[Kirby101]

Closed. Right now the GOP has one realistic candidate, Trump. Without having to vote in their Primary, in an open Primary Republican voters could vote in large numbers to swing a Primary towards who they thought would be easier to beat. If you want to vote in a Primary you only have to register in that Party. It isn't a burden and in my opinion lets people aligned with that Party have a say on who their nominee is.