The only open primaries I would support is the CA senate model where all the Republicans and Democratic nominees for the office are on one ballot. If one party has an open primary and the other doesn't the opportunity for mischief in the form of strategic voting arises.

It's a good way to include independents in the political process.

through every open primary to vote against Hillary Clinton. This isn't all right. Bernie specifically tried to draw in these hostile voters, who disappeared back into the GOP as soon as their votes were cast, to help him win against registered Democrat voters. This is very bad and it mustn't happen again.

As for Bernie trying to get the Democratic Party to lay down and spread its legs, he's a fool if he thinks left-wing radicals are the only ones who'd try to take advantage. I don't think he's a fool, though. I just think he's willing to risk destroying a party he doesn't believe in.

We need a better man. One committed to liberal ideals who will work from inside as a Democrat to make the party better. Not a hostile crank.

Must be cognitive dissonance

this. Many people openly admitted it, were pleased to. Only the dependability of the polling and the estimated percentages vary. Go read. You're politically active and presumably prepared to vote your opinions. Everyone has a duty to vote responsibly.

not winning than what he said his campaign was about (Wall Street, raise minimum wage,Citizens United etc). The fact that he is focusing on petty personal vendettas and open primaries tells a lot about his motives. And the most UNDEMOCRATIC part of the primaries----Caucuses---Those he wants to KEEP?! Caucuses disenfranchise older people,disabled people,ALOT of working people, people with children and/or elderly parents they are caring for, etc....How rigged and undemocratic is THAT?! But those he is fine with. Hypocrisy.

Close primaries can be manipulated, as we have seen is too many states the past few months.

The political party need to adapt to the will of the people. As things stand now, the people are supposed to adapt to the will of Democratic party. That is the way to a dictatorship. Power to the People and all that.

Sounds more like a call for mob rule.

Why restrict that selection to only the candidate/s the party leadership wants? What about the will of the people?
Also the party leadership is supposed to be neutral when two or more candidates are running. Let the people decide in fair and open elections during the primaries.

The purpose of the primaries is to select a leading candidate for each party. Suggesting that each party be subject to it's opposition's control is pretty much just mob rule.

Does that somehow over rule your mob rule?
What is mob rule anyway? The people selecting their choice, instead the one the party choose for them?

... have undue influence on dem primaries

It is mostly a talking point. And the few people that do do that get swamped out by the regular party voters anyway.

... have undue influence either.

There's NOTHING WRONG with the way the dem primary system is right now...

Sanders would NOT want to change anything if he had one the dem primary due to him NOT lamenting any of these issues from the beginning

Bernie want changes to make the Democratic primaries more fair for all candidates running. The people should decide who they want to vote for, not the party leaders. That is not supposed to be the party leaders purpose anyway. But it sure was this time.

... though.

Sounds like sour grapes seeing he's not trying fix the privileged caucus's

If you canvass in heavily blue areas, you'll come across some Republicans who are registered as Democrats because they want a say in how their local government is run. Closed primaries are more likely to keep out the more idealistic individuals who don't think they should have to become a member of a party. Those people seem unlikely to game the system (since they could do so right now if they wanted, but aren't for ideological reasons).

as Democrats. But we didn't see this in '04. And we didn't see tons of Democrats do this in '12. This whole thing reminds me of the people who are pushing voter ID laws, acting so concerned about a potential problem that there's little evidence of.

... and LESS people would go through that process than leaving it open.

Sanders KNEW these rules before getting into the race... no need to change them after the fact

Again, this is like the people who are pushing for voter IDs - getting concerned about potential problems that we have no evidence of. Only about a dozen states have closed primaries. It's not like the other states are a mess, and I don't recall many people worrying about them.

... for the undue influence to occur

Again, Sanders would NOT want to change the rules if he had won... no way.

And he's NOT wanting to change caucus rules which are mostly made for the privileged who can take off work for whole day

(which benefit him) using the excuse that they would be "more democratic" but NOT WANTING to do away with highly anti-democratic caucuses (which benefit him but effectively disenfranchise the vast majority of voters) reveal his thinking clearly enough.

For him, his claimed concern about democracy is clearly phony, or perhaps he sees it as a luxury for an imaginary future where he's won all he wants to win.

Do you have any evidence that this kind of voter fraud is an issue in semi-closed or open primary states?

Democrats as any others and have the same right to choose their candidate.

This is not analogous to hostile outsiders coming in to subvert the vote.

IE, you knock on a registered Democrats door during a GOTV effort, and they straight up tell you that they're a Republican voting for the Republican candidate, but they're registered as a Democrat just so they can have a say in who gets elected (because the Republicans almost always lose in the general).

Why did so many registered Democrats get disenfranchised? Why did so may find out they were not registered as Democrats when they did register as Democratic and had been for years?

Who are to decide who the Democrats are? The people themselves or those with access to the voter rolls?

... be caught after the fact.

Sanders would NOT be trying to change the rules if he had won

Bernie couldn't win over support from his peers so now he wants to take their ability to support a nominee away from them--not to "help" the next insurgent candidate.

n/t

It will be impossible for him to force changes. His representatives will get to make their case, but the decisions will be made by a majority of the committee in each case.

The Democratic Party will decide what to do. Right now, different states have different primary policies, and that's not likely to change. Each state's party organization will insist that they know best about their state.

As for the super delegates, they didn't matter in this primary season, nor have they mattered in any of the recent primaries. When only two candidates make it to the convention, one has a majority of pledged delegates and the other does not. That means that the super delegates support the candidate with the majority. They're not a problem, really. I think they will remain part of the process.

no.

Sid

As to the other demands ... not likely to happen.

Or burning every fucking bridge I see, I will make Sherman look like a pacifist. Then you will really like me.

I want Senator Warren on the ticket so that we can ignore Sanders

I doubt that he is going to get closed primaries opened. The supreme court has long held that political parties have a First Amendment freedom of association.

everyone around to suit his own ego. no thanks.

Why enable these people to hurt us by deliberately voting for the least electable Democratic candidate in an open primary?

This push to allow Republicans, including racists and homophobes, to vote in our Democratic primaries seems extremely bizarre to me.

I support getting rid of SDs. I support the elimination of caucuses. I support open primaries.