home

Open Primaries

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Markos gets some flak (most of it candidate support inspired imo) in the thread of his post advocating a Dems For Romney campaign in Michigan (where the Dem primary is unofficial.) Markos wants Romney to scramble the GOP field (I assume he also wants to hurt McCain's chances.) I am dubious of the efficacy of the effort but it does highloght the absurdity of the concept of "open" primaries. If a party is choosing its standardbearer, only members of that party should be allowed to participate. Or as Markos writes:

Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee. So if this little campaign adds impetus for closing primaries, so much the better. But as long as the law allows crossover voting, there is nothing wrong with picking up the ballot you think best helps YOUR candidate.

And any progressive member of the Democratic base should support this point of view. Open primaries are invitations to ignoring the base. This seems obvious to me.

< Find Your Candidate: VoteMatch | Edwards Set The Agenda >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Primaries | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What about people (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    who live in areas where there is one party and it isn't theirs.  You could live in a republicans dominated place, so your only choice is to vote in repub. primaries, during presidential primaries you may want to vote in the Dem, since you are a Dem.

    Also if you are truly independent, then you have no say in what your choices are come election day.  This is a two party system, so i think open primaries are important.  It isn't really a Democracy if 30 percent of voters don't have a say in their candidate choices.

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    Then it matters little if they vote at all I suppose.

    Since the dominat party is not their party, they are not likely to be happy in any case.

    Parent

    Well that isnt true (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    If you say say in Texas, and your choice is a republican that is fine with public schools and one that want to create vouchers, you would want to vote in the republican primary.

    Parent
    For such offices as Sheriff, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:50:46 AM EST
    the label matters a lot less than the individual.

    In rural counties, this is often the most important race to the voters.

    Parent

    I think you (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    are probably right, I'm just sensitive because of the way white primaries were used in the all democrat south of yore.  I know this is completely different but i can't help but cringe at the thought of restricting people from primaries.

    Parent
    This is exactly right (none / 0) (#27)
    by jr on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    I grew up in Cobb County, GA (and, accordingly, fled as soon as I could).  Since everyone knew after, oh, 1990, that the Democrats would either not field a candidate or would simply run a sacrificial lamb for most offices (I volunteered for a number of them), the Republicans would have bloody primaries, usually with some form of fiscal conservtive v. social conservative, and the winner would almost always carry the November ballot.  Anyone who wanted to have any say at all in who would hold office had to vote in the Republican primary, because it was the de facto main event.

    I think there might be a good way to compromise here, though.  In several states (including Florida, I believe), when only one party is fielding candidates for a seat, then primary ballots from every party include that race, and it's treated like a general election.  So say three Republicans are running for a county commission seat and the Democrats haven't fielded anyone: since the person who wins the nomination is going to win the seat by default, the nominating contest gets treated like a general election, and anyone who turns out to vote from either party gets a say in who represents them.

    Parent

    I'm with Kos (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    Democrats don't do enough of this kind of stuff, IMO.  We suck at political hardball and we've paid for it for decades.  This year we have a chance to cause a little havoc (or more accurately a little MORE havoc) and I say go for it, Michigan Democrats.

    yeah, I think that's the best part (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    of this effort.

    I don't (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    really see the harm in open primaries, well correct that, I can see it in theory, but i don't think it has ever caused practical problems, in a presidential. I think the mixed state by state system is helpful for presidential primaries. Aside from that i support same day registration for elections, so that requires open primaries.

    I'm old enough to remember (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    "Democrats for Nixon" running TV ads against McGovern in the general.  They have it coming.

    I wholeheartedly agree with what Kos is trying to do - prolong the GOP's internecine wars by propping up the Mittster through Dem votes, and poisoning him with the Repugs by making clear his votes came from Dems.  From all I've seen, Mitt might toss the towel if he loses in Michigan.  With Rudy Cue Ball not paying his staffers (voluntarily, they claim*), that could leave St. John, Grandpa Freddo, Huckster, and Paul as the only ones still standing by the beginning of next month.  Then, the corporate cons and neocons will coalesce around St. John (leaving Freddo to maunder along as a sort of showpiece, McCain debating foil and anti-Huck insurance) and turn on Huck and ignore Paul.

    For the evangelicals, they're in the same position with the Repugs that the real progressives are with the Dems - where are they going to go if not the Republicans?

    Once that gets sorted out (probably as soon as the Repugs pull out all those sermons Huck's hidden, so as to make clear to normal people what a radical cleric he is), the evangelicals can come home and then the relatively unified Repugs wlll turn their full fury on the Dems.  The longer that can be put off, by keeping Mittens (and, for that matter, Rudy Cue Ball) in the race, the better.

    I also wholeheartedly agree with the idea of closed primaries, but it's a little late for that this time around.  For the time being, though, this is what we have and, if we can toss a turd in the Repugs' churn, so much the better.

    -
    * I want so desperately to see the make-good graft the Repugs are going to have to come up with to cover those checks....

    Any person who voted in a primary (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    should be barred from changing registration before the general election.  But maybe there is already a First Amendment case upholding such a right.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
    Constitutional issues aside, registration is irrelevant in a general election.  Everyone is allowed to vote for any of the candidates.  Just because your registered Democrat, doesn't mean you can't vote Republican. Ask Walter Mondale.

    Parent
    You are probably absolutely (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    correct.  I'm just remembering NH primary voters could change there reg. on the way in and change it back on the way out.  

    Parent
    Vote Dodd in Michigan, fight wiretaps. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    So what if he's withdrawn, he's still on the ballot, and there's no delegates at stake anyhow.

    15% for Dodd would send a message to Michigan's Senators, Reps, and hopefully the rest of the Congressional Dems that an extension of wiretap authority is unacceptable. It's not just immunity, Reid's now, according to the Wall Street Journal, going to put up an 18 month extension of the Protect America Act, extending authority for warrantless taps.

    The "problem" the bill was intended to fix, a FISA Court decision requiring warrants for foreign to foreign calls transiting US soil, is no big deal. If there's reason to believe the calls sare terrorist communications, there's still a process for getting FISA warrants.

    Pass nothing, let the stinker expire.

    If you wanna play political games..... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    with your primary vote, that's your business.  It's a piker move in my book, people should vote for who they would most like to see as president, but "political game" voting should be allowed.  Besides...Who is to say a registered Dem can't sincerely support a Repub, and vice versa.

    As a voter, I much prefer an open primary to a restricted one.  

    Um (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    since you are not willing to be part of a political Party, this is hardly surprising.

    You are a selfish voter.

    Parent

    Selfish voter? (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    Meaning I vote for the candidate who best represents my views, regardless of the letter after their name?  

    If yes, I take it as a compliment, and we could use more "selfish voters".

    And bet your arse I'm not willing to identify myself with the two crime families running this country.  I've got too much pride.

    Parent

    Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    You are a selfish voter because NOT ONLY do not want to be a member of a party, you also want to have a voice in picking the candidate of a party you are not a member of.

    You can not have it both ways. If you are NOT willing to be a member of a Party, then you have no right to pick its candidate.

    You should wait until the parties offer up choices for you. That is the point of having parties.

    It seems to me what you are REALLY arguing for is nonpartisan elections. In that case, Bloomberg is your man.

    Parent

    "You can not have it both ways. " (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    Actually, I think he can. Though you may not like it.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    He can't.

    He is trying to argue some moral justification for this ridiculous system.

    That he might be able to based on the jurisdiction he lives in (and in fact, we do not know if he actually can, we are both speculating here) is no policy or moral defense for the system.

    That would be like me defending the right to choose because it is legal.

    You're better than this usually.

    Parent

    open primaries (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    I'm totally with Markos on this:

    As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee.


    little off topic question (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    What do you think of same day voter reg?

    Parent
    Do you also agree with Kos's advocacy (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    for Michigan Dems. to cross-over to the Republican primary?

    Parent
    One caveat (none / 0) (#13)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    If candidates can win every primary by simply preaching to the choir, how can we be sure they'll have the congregation nodding their heads and murmuring "amen" on election day?

    Otherwise I think you have a valid point.

    LEt the ideas decide (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    Let the Party brand decide elections.

    A real battle of ideas.

    Parent

    Vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#24)
    by LadyDiofCT on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:56:32 PM EST
    Hillary is on the ballot in Michigan, isn't she?  Why shouldn't her supporters show their support and vote for her?   These delegates may be counted at the convention if the party wants them to be.   I suspect the party will allow delegates from both Michigan and Flordia to attend the convention and be counted.  Voting 'uncommitted' seems like an anti-Hillary vote, huh?  Go Hillary 08!!!

    If you support HIllary you should vote (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:20:20 PM EST
    for her.

    If you support someone else who isn't on the ballot you should vote uncommitted.  JE and BO would be punished for standing by the party.  It has nothing to do with being anti-Hillary, everything doesn't revolve around the Clintons. It is the only way to stand by your candidate if they aren't on the ballot.

    Parent

    Open Primaries | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment