My state supports them and we tend to go blue in national elections, but I still think that they are wrong. If you want to play, you should join a team.

It's a way of weeding out poor voters. Requiring registration is not much different from allowing only landowners to vote.

Not rank and file Democratic Party dues to be a Democrat.

SECTION 2.02 – A member of the Missouri Democratic Party is anyone:
• Who is at least 18 years of age;
• Who declares that he or she is a Democrat; and
• Who is not a member of any political party other than the Democratic Party.

Only dues-paying members of the party are allowed to vote at the local party meetings and the state convention and hold a party office. That's about all a formal membership gets you. (At least that's the way it is in Wisconsin and probably in other states. The dues schedule starts with $10/year for low-income and student members and goes up from there, $25 individual, $35 pairs, more for those who want to pay more, so it's not too much of a burden. I think something would be arranged for anyone who couldn't afford even the $10.)

What I'd call an "informal" member is someone who identifies with the Democratic Party and votes that way. In states with closed primaries they would register as a Democrat to vote in the primary. Probably a large percentage of people who consider themselves Democrats have no idea there even is an organization that requires dues.

It's about district/county parties supporting the state party, which in turn supports the national party. This is done through fundraising.

Anyone who's ever sat on a local Dem party board knows this.

In order for them to vote in a primary, whether or not paryy registration is required.

I don't believe any Dem party is actually doing this.

...and Primaries are controlled by the State Governments, not the Parties.

We have open primaries where voters choose a party ballot. There are no party membership or registration requirements, though. How would a state have closed primaries without enforcing membership qualifications?

It's a tick on a box on a form. That's it. There are no other requirements. (There are, however, deadlines prior to any election if later you wish to change your affiliation to the Democratic party if you are already a registered voter.)

I am opposed to open primaries. Too much opportunity for mischief by the opposing side when an incumbent is running

parties had contested candidates...little crossing over. I did notice that there was no surge in new voters which Perriello was hoping for. I have screwed with the GOP in Ohio...we have open primaries... and who can forget operation chaos in 2008.

People who live where they are in the minority politically should not be forced to identify themselves to everyone at the polls while trying to vote in their party's primary. This is especially important in small communities. It's why we have a secret ballot for the general election.

You can only vote one or the other and it is a matter of public record in which primary you voted.

I guess this is slightly better than having to be registered in a party as far a privacy goes, but not much.

You can't vote in the party's runoff if you haven't voted in the party's primary.

with Democrats in them...so I think that it is not worth the potential screwing up of our primaries by the GOP and Green voters.

although I could get why people don't.

For those that don't know, jungle primaries are when you throw everyone on the ballot (D, R, L, etc.). The top 2 then have a runoff to win the election (if 1 doesn't get over 50% the first time).

This tends to keep down some of the extremism on both sides -- see John Bel Edwards as the only D governor in the South.

California was that way in the 80's until Pete Wilson, in his anti immigrant zeal, permanently pushed it to become bluer and bluer.

won it outright if the voters rolls had not been messed with. The second was an R of course, Karen Handel, who used CrossCheck when she was SoS.

I think the ads denouncing Handel's cutting of funds for PP when she was ceo of Komen has resonated. As one woman said, she could have not taken that job at Komen instead of trying to push a personal agenda that hurts women.

To keep the electorate smaller, whiter, and more amenable to the candidates favored by those who think the majority of voters unfit to participate in the electoral process.

on the voter numbers...when less than 1000 votes gets the same number of delegates as a states that has thousands of votes, the system truly is rigged.

Thank-you for the reminder. Personally, I oppose caucus and I want closed.

I am in Texas.
I have voted for establishment types to discourage tea party types on the ballot.
Closed primaries would probably make Texas even more conservative.

When a Repub incumbent is running unopposed, are you also OK with them all crossing over to vote for a Dem that is a weak candidate ?

Otherwise, it doesn't really matter around here. There is a serious shortage of Democrats. The primaries don't matter all that much. There is usually only one good candidate.

Our Senatorial candidate who is running against Ted Cruz is unopposed. I don't think anyone is going to oppose him. He's building a campaign team. Unless someone viable comes along, the candidacy is his. (An unknown may oppose him, but that would not be considered a serious candidate)

When you register to vote/vote, it is nobody's business what party you support.

CHOSING the candidates on the General Election Ballot is a matter for individual Parties and their REGISTERED members.

The general election is open.

..we also caucus for the Pres elections but after last years disruptions, I'm not so supportive of any more. We also have all mail in ballots for everything... which I love.

...mean you can vote for the opposite party's worst candidate, especially when your favorite candidate is unchallenged or expected to win. I don't think that's fair... still, we need to get as many people voting as possible. Maybe open - with guidelines?

They have closed primaries, but an unaffiliated voter can vote in a primary and declare his/her party affiliation that day (that's how I did it). Their machine politics and county line is a post for another day.

To switch from D-R ( or vice versa) you have to do so 45 days in advance.

Having worked on campaigns before, partisan registration is not always accurate (particular with people who have lived at their address for many years). You have a lot of Demosaurs who registered years ago and vote GOP in the general but don't update their registration.

...encourages voting and good voter instincts.

We have a two party system that is structural in nature. It's how we are set up. Third or forth parties can affect outcomes by influencing popular policy and numbers of voters. They don't need open primaries to do this. Also, it doesn't matter which two parties. I think, if Libertarians were smart, for instance, they'd be trying to dominate the Republican Party--which they agree on in any number of fiscal policies, but disagree strongly in significant ways on social ones -- until it dies.

When I first registered, I was asked for a party preference. I was still in college in Pennsylvania, so I registered there. At registry, we were asked if we wanted to register as a member of a party or independent. I remember one arrogant "hippier-than-thou" kid shouting, "no party preference for me, no one owns me, I'm registering independent!" The woman doing the registering remarked, after he left, "smart man, he just made himself ineligible to vote in the primaries!"

I don't want Republicans skewing votes in our primaries. Let them go play in their own sandbox. Primaries are for parties to sort out preferences among themselves and among their own candidates. Democrats should be able to decide among themselves which Democrat to put forth as their candidate, and Republicans should do the same.

Ironically, the very first vote I ever cast was for a Republican. It was the 1971 election for mayor of Philadelphia. It was one of the easiest decisions I ever made. My candidate lost (of course--I got REALLY used to that), but my vote was vindicated. The guy who won, the hated chief of police, Frank Rizzo--a very Trump-like buffoon--, later switched to the Republicans. He eventually faded away under a cloud of corruption (as in, how do you build a $400,000 house on a $40,000 salary?), and died in deserved obscurity.