2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEven the Green Party disagrees with open primary....
"Open" primaries only serve the short-term interests of unaffiliated voters at the expense of party members who spend time and energy building a fighting organization with a coherent platform and agenda. Should someone who is not a member of a union be allowed to vote for who will be the president of that union? Of course not: a fundamental element of the right to freely assemble is the ability to set reasonable criteria to establish who is a member and who is not.
http://www.gp.org/statement_from_the_green_party_of_ny_on_open_primaries_lawsuit_and_need_for_democratic_reform
DetroitSocialist83
(169 posts)As the Working Families Party uses. I think that should be allowed in primaries as well as general elections, but that's just me.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)major parties will reject the dilution. You have the right to vote for your a party member, the person to lead the party. That is the main reason for the primary in the first place.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)All these calls of voter disenfranchisement over closed primaries which have been around for many many years...it's just ridiculous. And I am someone who HATES voter disenfranchisement and has been active against it for a long time.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)unless you are one of those who believe in small d democracy, the idea that a citizens right to vote is only conditioned on joining a private political party.
And, if you believe in small r republican governance, the idea that legislators represent political parties and not their entire constituency should worry youespecially when almost 50 percent of voters no longer trust either political party to represent them.
Seeing how independents will have a say in the general election,
and will be voting for the nominee that the party nominates, it makes sense that they should have a say in who that nominee that they are voting for is. A closed primary is limiting political freedom, period!
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Isn't denying your right to vote. It means you're being lazy & irresponsible.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Bernie tapped into that voting block. They should of had the right to vote for their candidate, period!
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)You don't have to donate to them, work for their candidates, or even privately identify as a member of the party. But if you are liberal/left-leaning and you live in a closed primary state, you are only hurting yourself if you don't register with the Democratic Party. What's the likelihood you're going to vote for a Republican? Registering just gives you options, access. You can choose not to vote!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)they are registered as a democrat, it's not right.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)How on earth is THAT right?
"Hey it's your club and all, but WE get to decide who you leader is."
No, Thanks.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And the only reason it exists is because the Republicans have been working to create it for 40 yrs.
Just because some idiots can't be bothered to take their responsibility as citizens seriously enough to register to vote doesn't mean their right to vote has been taken away.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Open primaries would kill them.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they need to maintain a certain number of voters in order to get on the ballot.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)some other faux-conspiracy. Otherwise, they would have to admit they are getting beat because the voters prefer someone else.