Right from a small d perspective. Folks who aren’t members of the party don’t get to vote in party elections.
That disenfranchises folks who might want to vote for a pet cause or personality.
But one of the purposes of a party election, and a Democratic primary is a PARTY election, is for members of the party to decide who gets to be our candidate on the general election ballot.
If you aren’t interested in making the party better by fighting for what you believe in the rest of the time, then why should we let you make (or perhaps usurp) decisions on who we want to run?
I don’t know if it’s different for state-level and local races, but unaffiliated voters CAN vote in the “semi-closed” Democratic presidential primary in California. Republicans and members of other parties cannot. Which seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
If I had my druthers, we’d retire the caucus system entirely, and go to primaries in every state. Personally I’d prefer to see more of them be open or “semi-open” or “semi-closed” primaries rather than completely closed primaries.
Unfortunately, I fear that Bernie’s successes in the caucus states and Hillary’s successes in closed primary states may harden the position of many of their supporters in favor of those two models, neither of which I particularly like.
But as we consider the open-primary vs closed-primary question, it may be helpful to keep in mind that it really isn’t quite that binary of a choice – we don’t have to choose between either allowing everyone, even registered Republicans, to vote in Democratic primaries, and only allowing people registered as Democrats months before the election.
Some states, like California, allow unaffiliated voters but not Republicans (or members of other parties) to vote in the Democratic primary. Other states do limit to just registered Dems but allow anyone to re-register as a Democrat much closer to election day, and in some cases on election day (same-day registration). There are some states that allow unaffiliated voters to register Dem right up to Election Day and still vote in the primary, but require those previously registered as Republicans (or with other parties) to switch their registrations months earlier in order to vote in the Dem primary.
So there’s actually a number of options that fall somewhere between totally closed primaries and totally open primaries.
It’s been a while since I’ve plugged my favoritest progressive evangelical (you read that right) blogger: Slacktivist. If all evangelicals were like him, there wouldn’t be that instant internal reaction that many of us have when we hear “evangelical”.
Aaaaanyway, he wrote on open vs closed primaries a couple of days ago. “I don’t have any right to pick the Republican nominee”. Go read it, and read everything he writes especially the witty and insightful deconstruction and takedown of the “Left Behind” rapture-porn novels.
[quote=“Slactivist”]The complaint seems to be that both parties are thereby “disenfranchising” those who have not chosen to join them. That’s just … odd. It’s akin to my claiming that I’m being disenfranchised when you go into the voting booth because I have no say in how you fill out your ballot. Your “closed” balloting on your own behalf is exclusionary! That makes no sense. It is not in any way unfair or unjust that I don’t have the right to meddle in the Republican nomination process. I’m not thereby being deprived of any right.
But what of “independents”? Well, they’re not Republicans either, so they also should not be interfering with Republicans’ selection process. Nor are they Democrats, or Libertarians, or Anti-Masonists or Greens — and having chosen not to belong to any of those groups, it makes no sense to argue they have a right to make decisions on those groups’ behalf.
Parties pick their own nominees. If you want to participate in any given party’s nomination process, join that party. Otherwise, what possible claim could you have to any right to choose on their behalf?[/quote]
As a small counterpoint to miker and immanroshi, I have attended the Democratic caucus in my state (NE) the last 3 elections and there is really not much shouting. Cheers when each candidate’s representative speaks, and cheers each time an undecided is swayed to one side or the other, but even Bernie supporters (mostly 18-25 year-olds) weren’t mob-like at all. Passionate, a little idealistic and deluded about politics IMO, but good kids wanting to change the world.
And every person is counted individually; decibel level had nothing to do with determining the winner.
Personally I think they’re kind of fun, but because they are more…active (and longer)…than walking into a quiet church and drawing an X or punching a card, they do favor younger, idealistic, voters over older, more cynical voters.
If all these “millions of new voters” that Bernie “brought into the process” spent even on tenth of their time and energy they’ve spent on demonizing Hillary and Hillbots, doing oppo and organizing during midterms, they could have a profound impact on life in America at every level.
Judges, School boards. County Sheriffs. Libraries. Public school. Colleges and Universities. The House. The Senate. The Governor, The State Houses. The Secretary of State and the County Recorder (who control local elections). Commissioners on boards that affect the environment and the quality of life on a local and state level. If they put even one tenth of that energy, they’d outvote the Republicans on local and state issues, hands down.
But no. They parachute in every four years going for the Big House, and sit around on their prissy asses in a big hissy fit for elections where “independents” can actually have a profound impact.
Boo hoo! The President didn’t solve my big issue! I’m not voting, ever! Everything is too corrupt for my very pure self! Whiiiiiinnnnnee!
The fundamental problem with closed primaries is this: They are a mechanism to select a party’s candidate, yet ALL taxpayers including independents and other non-aligned voters pay for them. To exclude those who pay for the election is the old “taxation without representation” thing that ought to send both Tea Partiers and uber-liberals alike right up the wall. It is party welfare. If a publicly-funded election systematically excludes members of the voting public, it is flawed. Yes, there can be “mischief” in an open primary and voters may vote to influence who they want to appear in the general election. It can be argued that is legitimate. If parties want to avoid the “mischief”, they should pay for primary elections and make all the rules they want.
The constant whining and complaining is getting them the exact opposite of what they desire. IMO the Democratic party should take a look at the fiasco that is the Sanders campaign and make sure it doesn’t happen again. I would hope more states adopt the closed primary system in response to these Trojan horses from Vermont.
What good does it do you to whine to Joe and Blondie? The only thing they will gladly do is join you in a chorus of “Hillary bad, Hillary bad”. Take it up with the state parties and they will handle your complaint expeditiously.
Would it be more democratic if your hubby would stop lying about Hillary. Poor old doe eyed Naderite Susan Sarandon was on Colbert and believes that Hillary started the Iraq war and that she voted for the trade agreements. Bernies followers believe that crap because he has repeated it from the beginning. He and his team are liars. He should stop that crap now and be honest with his followers.
To repeat what has been common knowledge…he is not a Democratic and never has been or will be when this is over. Considering his feelings toward Fidel and his revolution, Bernie is a communist. His followers should find out what that actually means.
Jane has to do this type of whining because when Bernie is in front of the camera he automatically launches into hi stump speech. That is all he has.
Even if a caucus is exceedingly well behaved, I have a problem with any process that doesn’t allow a private voting process. I don’t think people’s votes should be influenced by fear ostraication or backlash from their communities if their votes run contrary to popular opinion. I’ve known small community business owners who have confided they’re afraid of customer backlash from caucus proccesses.
“If you close the primary and you only have people who have been in the Democratic Party for years, what you are doing is effectively shutting the door on the millions of people that Bernie has brought into the political process during this election,” she said.
Why? Because Bernie’s followers are too fucking lazy to register to vote as a Democrat? I thought Bernie was bringing millions and millions of new voters to the Democratic party.
Yep. I insisted on registering as an Independent for years when I was younger, because I did not want to be labelled. I wanted to be a free thinker. I made a conscious choice not to be part of either party. But I always voted Democrat. Eventually I came to the conclusion that I was a Democrat and that I wanted to vote in primaries, so I registered as a Democrat.
The MSM and many others do us a great disservice as they talk about the primaries and caucuses. This is not a general election. It is a time that political parties select the candidate the want to run. Yes there could be some changes allowing greater choice in this process such as allowing independents to be on the ballot, allowing third paty choices etc. but as the primary / caucus process is today it is a process for parties to select who they want to represent them.
There could be a strong argument Bernie should not have been allowed to even be on the Democratic Party ballot as he claims to be an independent.
Virginia, where I live, is open and it hasn’t mattered at all. I think that in Michigan, crossover voting had an impact on the outcome, as a result of Republicans voting for Sanders, and many Democrats trying to stop Trump’s momentum. It was a virtual tie in any event. Talking about closed primaries but staying mum on caucuses totally undermines her credibility, but she is not a professional politician, so I guess I will cut her some slack.
I prefer closed primaries and am with the author @boidster posted just above.
It is, after all, the process of parties selecting their standard bearers under their own set of rules, and if one chooses not to be affiliated with, say, the Democratic party, that simply means s/he decides it is not their party and decides not to join it. There is no discrimination against anyone based on race, gender or religion involved there – it’s voters’ own choice whether or not to register as a D, or an R, or whatever party. I really don’t think there is anything complicated about that.
It’s our commitment to the party we want our voice reflected to, and I do want voters who want to vote in Democratic primaries to register as a D.
Having said that, I think in some cases it is reasonable to relax the existing registration rules so registration/re-registration as a Democrat is reasonably accessible – and what I have in mind is, of course, New York. While I don’t like same-day registration (closet Rs, fickle-minded voters and like that), New York’s deadline for changing party affiliation should be closer to election day (my state’s registration deadline is one month before the primary day, which I feel is reasonable).
Yes Jane, but Bernie is losing open primaries as well. Your husband is not a Democrat. People had more than ample opportunity to change their registration, but they obviously were not “inspired” to do so.
I think I read somewhere there hasn’t been much effort by his camp at those big rallies to register voters, either. And this is important, no matter how much room for improvement in the primary process, the rules had long been existent and well known before this election cycle. He had known them, or should have known them, if he decided to play the game, and should have strategically invested resources according to the rules. He should never, ever complain in the middle of the game about the rules – and conveniently and selectively for that matter. That’s the number one definition of sore losers.
Since publicly-funded primary elections bother you so much, why not join all these “millions and millions” of “newly engaged voters” and organize an effort to change the election laws in your state?
Some Democratic primaries are open; many are not. There are arguments pro and con. How about caucuses? Are they “more democratic”? I think not. Sanders has done well in caucuses, because they are the best venue in which a determined minority may dominate. One thing about closed primaries – they make it difficult for a candidate who has never been a Democrat all his political career, except when he decides he wants to take advantage of an opportunity to seize control of the party and make a run for the presidency. In fact, closed primaries, in which real Democrats vote, have defeated just such an attempted coup. Let’s hear it for closed primaries!
To exclude those who pay for the election is the old “taxation without representation” thing that ought to send both Tea Partiers and uber-liberals alike right up the wall. It is party welfare. If a publicly-funded election systematically excludes members of the voting public, it is flawed.
I might say this was a stupid argument but instead I will say it’s not even an argument. It’s like comparing apples to skyscrapers. If you want the representation, you can avail yourself of it. Go register for a party and get represented.
