Poll: Are open presidential primaries more democratic?

[blueintelligentsia]

Comment on why you voted Yes or No and please refrain from negative comments about Sanders or Clinton, that detract from a constructive discussion.

62 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	43 (69%)
	No
	19 (31%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JaneyVee]

1. Democrats should decide Democratic nominee..

[morningfog]

3. That wasn't the question.

[JaneyVee]

8. I already voted.

[morningfog]

9. And that wasn't the question either.

[JaneyVee]

14. Im unorthodox.

[morningfog]

20. Again, not the question.

But you did answer it below.

[upaloopa]

41. your queation is a push poll and doesn't deserve any relply

[morningfog]

57. It's not my question.

[Stallion]

10. I Agree-If They Want to Run Against Democrats Let Them Start a 3rd Party

If they consider themselves Democratic Socialist then let them run like a Democratic Socialist

[DrDan]

110. absolutely - register for the party if you want to vote for the party's nominee

[CorporatistNation]

118. Allowing People To Vote As They See Fit Optimizes The Quality of The General Election Candidates

Thus, denying the ABSOLUTE SELECTING of the candidates that we in the end in the General Election have the opportunity to vote FOR. Instead, the current system is specifically designed to facilitate "The Selection" of the candidates available with the Major Party Brand in the General election each of which are the favored candidate of the Corporatist Oligarchy.

[morningfog]

2. Yes, by definition, they are.

More voters brought into the process of selecting their representative and earlier is an expansion of democracy.

There is no argument to be made that allow fewer to vote in any given election is more democratic. Unless you a hyper partisan nut job.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. Bingo. I think you have diagnosed poster #1 accurately.

[JaneyVee]

12. But teabagging the polls is undemocratic.

Closed primaries create a check and balance.

[blueintelligentsia]

16. Teabagging the polls....what does that mean? nt

[JaneyVee]

19. Like Republicans crossing party lines to exploit the turnout.

[blueintelligentsia]

25. Couldn't you argue the opposite? nt

[JaneyVee]

30. So we'll be all choosing from the bottom of the barrel?

Both sides exploit the system in order to nominate the weakest most awful candidate and then America decides between 2 dipshits?

[blueintelligentsia]

75. or they cancel eath other out....and we're left with our current system...

Deciding between the better of two evils vs dipshits.

[morningfog]

17. However one votes, for whatever reason is an act of democracy.

More people being permitted to participate is more democratic than restricting voters.

[JaneyVee]

24. They can do that in the general election.

Otherwise it becomes undemocratic to allow such a loophole to be exploited to tilt the election towards a weaker candidate to be destroyed in the general election. And please dont play naive and act as if not only doesnt this currently happen, but it wouldnt be rampant if allowed.

[blueintelligentsia]

26. "allegedly rampant"....it sounds like fear is controlling your opinion? nt

[JaneyVee]

33. Republicans cant be trusted. See: Arizona 2016

[upaloopa]

47. Normally we run Dems against Dems. But this year and independent puts on a Dem hat and calls all

his independent followers to vote for him. Well it isn't going to work. Register as a Dem or don't vote in our closed primaries. Simple.

[morningfog]

62. How dare a candidate bring independent voters into the Democrstic party!

The horror! Expanding the dem voter pool?!!!? Outlandish!

In fact, I think some of those registered Democrats may even vote for one of those fucking dem hat wearing candidates. What to do? We should probably just end the voter based primaries. Switch to letting party elites decide.

[upaloopa]

68. If you want to register to vote in a closed primary you can it is simple just follow the rules

that were set up way before your guy decided to follow them.

If Bernie can't win the Dem vote that is democracy in action, people just don't feel the bern in NY so much.

[morningfog]

72. I never said otherwise. This thread is about whether

open primaries are more democratic. They are.

This is about whether we, as Democrats, should endorse open primaries. I think we should.

This thread and discussion is not about whether independents should be permitted to vote in closed primaries. They can't. It is a moot point.

In now it is hard to set your emotion aside to stay on point, but give it a go. Take a breath, read the words I write and try not to respond to points I. Am not making. It's annoying.

[Orsino]

97. Yeah, but more democratic isn't necessarily better in a party primary.

Wouldn't bother me if all primaries were closed.

[Dawson Leery]

5. No.

[blueintelligentsia]

11. If you're going to comment, don't just echo your vote please nt

[Codeine]

6. Primaries aren't really about "democracy", per se.

They're an administrative exercise, an opportunity for the members of a political party to choose who will carry their banner in an election.

The notion that Joe Dipshit, a person who has never played any role in the party, who can't be arsed to make one of the simplest and most basic of political decisions, should have anything whatsoever to do with that choice is frankly absurd on its face.

[radical noodle]

40. THIS ^^^^ eom

[blueintelligentsia]

42. "Joe Dipshit"...refrain from the name calling, thank you. nt

[Codeine]

46. Joe's cool. We go way back.

One of my aunts actually married a Dipshit back in '82. Didn't last but they had a beautiful daughter.

[Cheese Sandwich]

76. The 2 big political parties have an institutional monopoly on the political process.

They may technically be private organizations, but they have a de facto semi-governmental role as gatekeepers of the political process. In some cases their advantages are even written into law.

Blocking independents from primaries is locking us out from meaningful participation in choosing our representatives.


* Sorry for copy and paste since I said the same thing earlier.

[Codeine]

83. I don't really buy the notion of "independents".

It's a two-party system, like it or lump it. That means there's a binary choice and most people are intelligent enough to know if they're a 1 or a 0. Your average indy voter always swings the same way; he or she is an Indy-in-name-only.

So stop pretending. People cling to their "independent" voter identity out of sanctimony and a holier-than-thou attitude. They've already picked a side, but they still want to pretend. I have no patience for that. Get on the bus or get on the curb.

[Cheese Sandwich]

84. I changed my registration from Dem to independent because we got a new boss at work and he hated Dem

he hated Democrats.

I was registered Dem after i voted for Obama in 2008. But then the new boss that came in 2010 was a big Republican and it seemed they would be bias toward people who were Democrats. And you can look up anybody's registration online. So I changed it to indy so they wouldn't know. But I still vote in Democratic primaries.

[bravenak]

80. YEP!!!!!

[PeaceNikki]

109. This is the correct answer. And I say fuck Joe Dipshit.

[BooScout]

7. I think all democratic primaries should be closed...

I don't like the ability of being able to cross over party lines and vote.

[blueintelligentsia]

13. What if only registered independents could? nt

[BooScout]

35. Nope...

I lost a good congresswoman once to 'independents' voting in a Democratic primary in Georgia. I don't care for open primaries.

[blueintelligentsia]

45. Who was she and who replaced her? nt

[morningfog]

18. That wasn't the question.

[hellofromreddit]

15. Open primaries are more democratic

Many voters have been disenfranchised by minor oversights on their part or by the state bureaucracy. No voter should be disenfranchised.

[Stallion]

21. All They Would Have to Do is Register as a Democrat

they aren't being disenfranchised

[FreakinDJ]

31. The party left me - I didn't leave the party

I have always been registered Democrat .... but it gotten pretty hard to tell the Democrats from the Republicans lately

[Stallion]

38. Neither the World Nor the Democratic Party Revolves Around You

actual Democratic registered voters have decided who they want to represent the Democratic Party, We'd all be better off if you had the right to vote for the Social Democratic candidate. But Bernie decided to attach himself to a party where he doesn't have the support of its office holders or its registered voters

[blueintelligentsia]

49. The curse of our Two-Party system beating down any independent candidate...

Ralph Nader received so much blame for the election of GWB. Many argued he shouldn't have run at all.

[FreakinDJ]

56. They will not win with out independents

If independent voters pull the plug ... Just get used to saying President Drumph

[hellofromreddit]

37. Many thousands of voters have been turned away from the polls due to clerical errors.

Although you do raise a good point. Allowing voters to register at the polls would be a reasonable solution.

[Karma13612]

58. In NY, that would have been the first Friday in October of last year, in order to vote in the

Primary in April 19th 2016

Six month deadline

We hadn't had the first debate even.

[JI7]

22. how about caucuses

[blueintelligentsia]

28. That's all a whole different story, the coin tosses in IOWA, for another poll nt

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Yes, they are, absolutely.

As it stands now, closed primaries disenfranchise a large segment of the voting public, the independents and undeclareds. I believe these people should have a voice in determining the eventual candidates. The only restriction should be that they participate in one or the other primary and not both.

[redwitch]

34. Exactly! nt

[blueintelligentsia]

51. What would that restriction look like? nt

[Blue_In_AK]

59. Voting records.

If a registered person votes in the Republican primary, there should be a record of that with the Division of Elections that would preclude them from voting in the Democratic. That works here because the parties' primaries/caucuses are on different days.

[blueintelligentsia]

73. So perhaps a waiting period if you voted for a party and switched next election nt

[Blue_In_AK]

91. That isn't what I was suggesting.

I'm talking about in the same election cycle. If you're an independent and vote in the Republican primary, you can't also vote in the Democratic one. Obviously.

[loyalsister]

104. For primaries in MO (presidential and state offices), you get a republican or Democratic ballot

So, it is impossible to participate in both. I think it works out pretty well.

[Blue_In_AK]

111. Yes, I agree, that's a good idea.

It's a little different here because the parties have different procedures and different voting days, but in primary states, that seems like a good solution.

Personally, I'd like to see all the states go to primaries, all on the same day or at least within the same week, and choosing party ballots like you suggest. It would sure eliminate a lot of the drama and angst.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Geez ... another No Shit Sherlock moment

[blueintelligentsia]

32. The vote doesn't look that way.....nt

[radical noodle]

29. I voted no

I think primaries are specifically held to guide the parties to the candidate that most of the party members want to see get the nomination. I lived most of my life in Indiana, an open primary state, and there were too many who crossed over to have a say in a party they had no support for. In 2008, Republicans skewed the vote for Clinton over Obama. Now I'm in Florida, with a closed primary. When I moved here I registered as an Independent because I knew Rick Scott was purging voters and I didn't want to take the chance of revealing that I was a Democrat. To vote in the primary I had to change my registration prior to 30 days before the primary. So I did that. Anyone can do that. So having an closed primary does not prevent people who really want to vote Democratic to change their registration. Florida is as much a PITA state as any, but there was an online form I could fill out (very simple info) and mail to the election board. I could have done it at the library, or at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

I believe all states have relatively easy methods to change from Independent to Democrat (or Republican) and most people know who they want to vote for in plenty of time to change. I really like that someone can't, at the last minute, decide to screw around with our election results.

[blueintelligentsia]

36. What if that someone doesn't want to screw around with the election? nt

[radical noodle]

44. There's no way to weed out those who do from those who don't

if you have an open election.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Alaska also has a closed caucus,

but the indies can sign up as Democrats on the day of the caucus and immediately switch back to independent afterwards, if they want to. I like this system. The R's are a lot more anal about it here, but they have a "presidential preference poll" rather than a caucus, and it's on a different day.

[Karma13612]

50. Are you aware that in

NY state, you had to have switched affiliation to democrat in October of last year to vote in their primary which isn't until April 19 2016.

Six months

Is that fair????

[blueintelligentsia]

52. Any new yorkers here to weigh in? nt

[Jim Lane]

100. Former New Yorker here. I weighed in against the New York rule -- see post #99.

Looking beyond the presidential primary next month, New York will hold primaries for Congressional seats in June and for state legislative seats in September. The same October 2015 deadline will apply. In other words, to vote in the September primary you had to have changed your registration almost a year before.

That's absurdly restrictive.

[radical noodle]

64. As far as I'm concerned, this is a Party issue

not an issue of voting rights or democracy. There were no primaries until the 20th century and prior to that the active party members sat around and bought and sold candidates until they had their nominee. Abraham Lincoln was chosen that way as were many other Presidents that we remember fondly. So as far as I'm concerned, each state party has a right to choose the way they want to run their primary. At least the average Democrat (or Republican) has the right now to have some say.

It seems to me that some basic history is missing with this idea that the primaries are about democracy and those who can't vote have experienced disenfranchisement. Primaries are specifically party politics, just as the conventions are. JMHO

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. They do a few things

they increase voter participation, which is critical in places like California. (It is not just the primary, by the time we get to it, it almost never matters anyway). It is about silly shit like the initiatives in the ballot, many of which are supported by Dems.

And in CA they have managed to keep the party from further shrinking.

[NuclearDem]

48. They're not supposed to be.

Primaries are for party members to decide who they best think represents or can best make a case for their party's platform in the general election.

Why should a party allow another party's members or people not aligned with any party to have a direct role in making that decision?

If you want to be unaffiliated or independent, fine, but party processes should be for party members only.

[Codeine]

55. Precisely.

Elections are about democracy. Primaries are more about the internal functions of a membership organization.

[NuclearDem]

61. Exactly. Primaries are one of the privileges of membership.

Which is why parties need to spend the off-years reaching out to independent and unaffiliated voters and convincing to join the party for the upcoming elections.

[blueintelligentsia]

65. They best start doing that ASAP, hopefully Clinton (if she wins) will reach out effectively nt.

[blueintelligentsia]

60. From a simple google search....

It looks like party membership of both parties constitutes 56% of Americans (25 Rep, 31 Dem). This is probably why our voter turnout is so low compared to many other highly developed countries. 33% is the average voter turnout, meaning 23% (probably less, since independents vote in the general) of registered voters regularly don't turn out to vote in general elections, why is that?

[NuclearDem]

69. I think that has less to do with party membership

and more to do with apathy, lack of access to the polls, disenfranchisement, or not understanding the importance of it.

It's typically politically toxic to say, but there's simply a certain number of Americans who just won't vote because they don't care and they don't want to, and no amount of voter outreach is going to change that. There's also a large number of people who will vote simply because of celebrity or novelty, and as we've seen with Trump, that's neither sustainable nor healthy for a democracy.

There really needs to be a massive overhaul of the election system. The district system needs to be abolished. Seats in Congress should be allocated proportionally based on a party's returns in the national vote, and primaries should be held after the general to let people vote based on issues and not personality.

I wouldn't say it's fundamentally broken, but it's been weakened.

[Dem2]

54. I voted "pass"

In my state, independents can vote in either primary, but not people from the other party. This is as "open" as I think primaries should be. I don't think "democratic" applies to the primary process, thus some states don't even participate, others have a crappy caucus system, then their are variations of primaries. The system in my state seems to be the best.

[blueintelligentsia]

63. When do they have to decide which side? nt

[Dem2]

66. At the polling station

One declares which ballot they would like - Democrat or Republican. After voting, one must immediately re-register as an independent though, or they are automatically registered to the party they chose in said primary. You can also change party affiliation in-between elections, but I'm not sure about the process or deadlines (but I know there are deadlines - one can't show up on the day of a primary and expect to vote in the other party's primary - I noted several disappointed voters who did not know this during this past cycle.)

[blueintelligentsia]

67. That exactly what I envision to be an open primary...nt

[Dem2]

81. Some states allow party crossover

That's the most open and I disagree with it.

[blueintelligentsia]

87. I'm confused...

At the polling station: One declares which ballot they would like - Democrat or Republican.

[Dem2]

93. IF they are a registered independant

Critical detail!

[Hydra]

70. I'm registered independent

But I side Dem, and would rather not have to register so to vote for my choice of candidate. Posts further up stating that I should need to register(be part of the club) to have a say tells me that I and my support are not desired.

My state is open for Dems but closed for Repubs. I'd be offended if I was Repub leaning and I was told I was not allowed in unless I signed in red.

[blueintelligentsia]

71. We have a similar system in CA..."modified closed primary" nt

[CalvinballPro]

74. Democracy means you can start a party and run it how you want, if you don't like how others do.

Joining a party is about joining a coalition of like-minded voters, not a lockstep formation. It means not always getting 100% of what you want, in exchange for the support of others in getting as much progress on as many fronts as possible, together.

Being an independent is as much of a choice as registering Republican or Democrat, and it stands to reason that there would be consequences of that choice. Being excluded by parties that want their members to choose their candidate just happens to be one of those consequences.

[blueintelligentsia]

77. Though it has largely always been two-party system...

The new party would have to replace one of the two or set a historic precedence of having a three-party system.

[CalvinballPro]

78. It doesn't have to be a 2-party system. It's not written into the Constitution or anything.

But it's not easy, and would take a lot of time and effort. Which is more often than not something to which most people seem sadly allergic.

[blueintelligentsia]

79. Social Democratic Party....nt

[Major Hogwash]

82. Of course they are.

The Republicans in Idaho require registration as a Republican to vote in their primary.
Why?

Because they're fuckin' authoritarians, that's why!!!!
They're control freaks.
That way they can get your name on their list.

That's the way the Nazis did it in the 40s . . . and many people think that the Republicans are about a half an inch away from becoming the American version of the Nazi party soon, some think it has even happened already.

[onecaliberal]

85. The most democratic thing you can do is let people vote for whomever they want

On Election Day without making them wait for 6 hours or keeping them from voting because there aren't enough ballots or polling stations.

[msongs]

86. people who CHOOSE to be independent have self-selected themselves out of political party primaries.

they should create and vote in an independent candidates primary. Otherwise just have elections and not call them primaries, but rather, the real and final election after which a candidate is declared winner.

[pinebox]

88. People should be able to vote for whomever they want to. PERIOD!

This isn't a membership drive at Sam's Club, it's a damn election.
Freedom of speech IMHO comes into play here as does freedom of expression & quite possibly freedom of choice. One day someone with enough balls will take that on.

That is what a DEMOCRACY is, freedom. Why so little and why are so many defending something which isn't?

Look at the user names in the poll results. It is divided right along candidate lines. Sad.

[CharlotteVale]

116. ^^THIS^^

[senz]

89. Democracy is about the people, not the party.

[Rebkeh]

90. Yes

Parties change, in a democracy, people have a voice to agree or disagree with the changes and vote accordingly. In a democracy, they have a say in what the party represents. In a representative democracy, the party represents the people. Not the other way around. Loyalty to your group is to be earned and freely given, when the group demands blind loyalty, it's no longer democratic. It's dogmatic. It's controlling. On the flipside, members relinquish responsibility... "I was just following orders." is no way to have an open and civil society.

Of, for and by the people means exactly that. It's not of, for and by the party.

Tribalism gone too far is toxic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. More people voting = more democratic.

[bigwillq]

94. I think so. So, yes. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

95. In my state I am glad only registered Democrats can vote in my primary.

[Vinca]

96. I'm not always happy about it, but yes.

There should be no restrictions on voting. It's a right. If a person wants to throw their vote away in a scheme to oust someone else, they're entitled to do that.

[KitSileya]

98. Primaries are meant to pick the nominee of a specific party.

Why should people who are not members of that party be allowed to decide? I mean, it's not like they cannot field candidates of their own for Presidency. We are disenfranchising no one by having closed primaries. Why should non-Democrats get to decide internal business for the Democratic party?

[Jim Lane]

99. On the main question, I'm undecided, but I will speak against the extremely closed NY primary

A typical closed primary allows only registered members of the party to vote, but one can change one's party affiliation up to 30 days before the primary. (If you can change on the day of the primary it's not effectively closed.)

AFAIK New York is the only state that has its absurd requirement: A change in party affiliation (including a change from independent) doesn't take effect until 30 days PLUS a general election have gone by. For someone registered as independent, for example, the deadline to change was in early October 2015 to be able to vote in the April 2016 presidential primary. Even worse, October 2015 was also the deadline for being able to vote in the September 2016 primary for state legislative seats.

Consider these people:
* White male millennial, registered independent out of disgust with both parties. He watches the first Democratic debate, on October 13, 2015, and for the first time finds a candidate who resonates with him. He wants to vote for Sanders.
* Older woman, usually votes Democratic but is registered independent because she values the ideal of independence and judging candidates on their merits. She's excited at the prospect of breaking the biggest glass ceiling, but in November 2015, Sanders's rising poll numbers lead her to believe that Clinton isn't the lock for the nomination that she'd assumed. She wants to vote for Clinton.
* Sensible person of any age or sex who is registered Republican and has been for years. In December 2015, after watching debates of both parties, s/he finally realizes that the Republicans have gone completely nuts. S/he decides to emulate Lincoln Chafee and so many others by switching her registration to Democratic.

None of these people can vote in the New York presidential primary!

I understand the arguments made upthread that the party's nominee should be selected by those who are loyal to the party, or at least loyal enough to register that way -- but there's no reason for the party to be so exclusionary in turning away new recruits.

[bkkyosemite]

101. No! As long as there are vote machines and tabulators owned by private companies

with secret codes the primaries are fixed. Caucus...every one is in plain view so it the counting.

If you want a fair primary you need paper ballots and manual counts out in the open.

[Zira]

102. Not when votes are being suppresed and it's impossible to trust a bought out party not to block a

candidate when they're paid off to try to get another to win.

[LonePirate]

103. Should football writers join baseball writers in voting for inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame?

I don't see much of a difference between the OP's question and the one I asked.

[Time for change]

115. Who gets into the Hall of Fame does not have major implications for the welfare

of all citizens of our country.

Who gets the Democratic or Republican nomination does, since these are the only two parties that our national news media takes seriously.

That is the difference.

[LonePirate]

117. If Independents truly cared about the welfare of our country, why aren't they Dems already?

[Maedhros]

105. Certainly more democratic, because it give more people a voice.

The argument is: are they more appropriate?

[LuvLoogie]

106. No.

Primaries are for party members selecting their candidate. The party has a platform it wants to represent, and the party is deciding who would best represent the party. Open primaries allow for those with no interest in the party or its positions to affect who the party chooses as its representative.

Democracy allows for one to become a member of a party, should one want a say in the Party's representative. Anyone who vote's in a party primary as a crossover or unafiliated, subverts the votes of party members.

[pdsimdars]

107. I am an indepdent who has voted straight Democrat for decades

I always wonder why I am left out of the nomination process.
The reason I'm an independent is that I have problems with both parties, but have always voted Democrat.
Isn't keeping people out of the process the same as the Republicans disenfranchising people?

[DrDan]

112. I am also - and I accept and respect the fact that I cannot vote in our primary

I can contribute and work for that candidate - which I do

but voting, imo, should be limited to party members

[workinclasszero]

108. Democrats should decide Democratic nominee..

[One_Life_To_Give]

113. They are about influencing unaffiliated voters.

The purpose of open primaries is to build more support for the party and the eventual nominee. Being more or less democratic really is not part of the analysis. Rather that somebody who primaries for the eventual nominee will be more likely to come out and support them in the General Election. And more likely to identify with the party.

[Time for change]

114. Why should independent voters be disenfranchised

in a country where the national news media takes only two parties seriously

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Just cut out the middle man

Have an open presidential primary and the leading vote getter becomes president. If the leading vote getter doesn't have a majority then there's a run off between the two leading candidates.

No more conventions and party debates.


That's democratic.