(California) State GOP may restrict primary to party members

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

California Republican Party leaders, in a move that could reshape state primary-election politics, are preparing a move to bar decline-to-state voters - now 20 percent of the electorate - from casting a GOP ballot in statewide and legislative primaries.

The proposed bylaw to the state Republican platform, which delegates will decide at the party convention next month in Indian Wells (Riverside County), has riled some business leaders and Republicans.

They say it could be disastrous for the party's future and could relegate Republicans in the state to "permanent minority" status by keeping independent voters from supporting Republicans in primary elections.

... The GOP plan allows conservative party insiders to shape critical 2010 races, said strategist Patrick Dorinson. "They want to pull up the ladder to the tree house where they play," he said. "They're treating the GOP like it's a club where they all make the rules for everyone, and the signs says, 'No girls allowed and no Latinos.' "

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/22/BAOD19C08G.DTL&tsp=1

I'll even send them some nails just in case they don't have enough to nail down that coffin lid.

It really won't make any difference at all.

What's best though is the way the party is fracturing so badly even while Arnold is in Sacto.

Political suicide or the start of something scary.

Make the party as exclusive as possible. Get in touch with its roots.


Let it die.

Indian Wells? Indian Wells????? Tennis courts & golf courses - all the staff to keep the places in operation live in Indio!

maybe the other states will follow suit. Show us how isolationism works, you corn-skinners.

The CA Republican Party is batshit crazy.

And drive more away from the Republican Party. I say, let them have their way on this.

I say, let them have their way on this.

As opposed to what?

:shrug:

is if you were a registered republican

Democrats always allowed non-partisans to vote Democratic

It's what they call a "closed primary." It's kind of like, only club members can vote for club candidates, which makes a certain amount of sense. In the general election is when everybody can vote any party they want.

And in our county of Bureau, long dominated by the Republican Party, it is, as of the 2008 election results: 19% Democrat, 17% Republican and the remainder undeclared/independant.

This type of law puts most of the political decisions in the hands of the party activists (like myself) and discourages participation from the 64% of the electorate that refuse to declare. Party regulars for the most part are happy with this arrangement. I believe it further drives a wedge between the people and those elected to serve their interests.

mike kohr

as a Democrat and try to split the primary vote so the least favorable Democrat would win and make a victory in state electlions easier. Elsewhere, Republicans called for their own people to vote in Democratic primarys for a Democrat who can not the general election. They are concerned that Democratis might do that. They are worried that Democrats will vote in their elections and choose someone that isn't Republican enough, like Arnold. They have utterly rejected the "Big Tent" for the belief that only a they arn't Conservative enough, and they seem to believe that Americans rejected them because they did not live up to Conservative Ideals. Let them live their fantasy.

He was too centrist and alienated the conservative base. Watch as they try to engineer future electoral processes so that only the rabid right can run fr office.

I can't wait!

candidate was McCain? This would prevent them from doing that.

Well, sort of, a little. Because it's a fairly easy thing to change your party registration, especially when Rush Limbaugh is reminding you daily to make sure you register Democrat in time to screw up the Democratic primary in your state. And you are inherently inclined to dirty tricks and dang proud of it.

A lot of states have the system they are trying to get. There are pros and cons are each side. Who cares? Their faithful are likely to nominate the least electible candidate, like Pat Robertson. Let em go for it. In fact, if you live in California, consider helping them out with this cause.

As you may recall, in March of that year Hillary Clinton was leading in the polls. The California GOP rules in effect for that election did not allow independent (Declined To State in California parlance) voters to vote on the Presidential nomination. The change under discussion here would expand that restriction to other offices.

The influence of independent voters choosing a Republican ballot in the California primary of 2008 was insignificant. The small bump that Barack Obama may have recieved from a few independents making an "Anyone but Hillary" stand by voting for her in the Democratic primary, failed to keep Clinton from winning.

That all happened months before Rush Limbaugh egged people on to switch parties and vote for Clinton in Democratic primaries, after Obama took the lead in the polls.

Just an interesting footnote for those who may have forgotten.

It'll also give even more power to the far reich loons that inundate their party

In California primary elections, because independent voters have the option of voting the party-specific ballot of any party that allows them to participate, the number of ballots based on party affiliation has been staggering.

Here are the parties as of the most recent election:

Democratic
Republican
American Independent
Green
Libertarian
Peace and Freedom

Add one for just plain independent, you get seven.

Now then, because the parties may restrict independents from fully participating (e.g. the GOP not allowing independes to choose a Presidential nominee), add one more flavor:

Independent voting in the Republican primary

That makes eight.

Multiply that by the number of languages in which balots are printed for your precinct. In mine they provide ballots in English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese. That makes 32 flavors. Take away the "independent voting Republican" versions and you still have 28.

Think of how likely errors are in so many versions.

Which cannot be good for either party. If they do go ahead with this , the Democrats should have a lot of fun and play around with them, even to go so far as take them to court to "protect the freedoms of the people" against this "undemocratic move".

Basically, call the repubs a bunch of stinking hypocrites.

Maybe redistricting reform which was voted in last year will change that in the 2012 election.

BTW, I got a very interesting phone call yesterday. I may be working with the plaintiff's team in a lawsuit by the ACLU, who is considering suing the city of San Diego for the way candidates without significant financial resources are systematically discriminated against in our elections here.

Incumbents almost alway win. When they get term-limited out, they get replaced by hand-picked Heirs Apparent, who get well funded, lots of automatic endorsements, and (usually) backed by their party.

And that club is the Illiterati! :rofl:

In their case, they have allowed the extremists to be those "insiders" (having chased the moderates away) and thus general election defeat will be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

:bluebox:

Sometimes we have closed primaries, sometimes
we don't.

All states are different.

This is one of the reasons why certain states
always go first in Democratic Presidential
primaries, Iowa has a unique caucus system,
and New Hampshire has a partially closed
primary.

Each state has it's own rules, and some, like
Michigan, choose which ever is more feasible.

Our primaries are only open for independent voters - 20% as of May 4, 2009 (see http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/hist-reg-stats.pdf ).

One party making a change in its rules doesn't really amount to much.

K&U for making much ado about nothing.

:kick:

I hope they adopt this rule for the primaries. I think it will do nothing be a benefit to our electoral process in this state. It certainly encourages people like my wife, who is unaffiliated, to freely exercising their choice. Bravo CA Republican party, bravo.
:sarcasm:

Hmm...

DTS (independent) voters could get a GOP primary ballot with the pages for the Presidential race and GOP party officials left blank.