Are Closed Primaries "Democratic"?

[Barack_America]

In most states, the majority of voters end up being disenfranchised. And these voters, by and large, WILL end up voting for one of the two major party candidates.

Don't they deserve a choice in deciding the nominees they will eventually vote for?

And if our primaries exclude a majority of Americans because they are elections for the "party only", do we have the right to argue their "democratic" merits?

There has been much discussion whether caucus are indeed "democratic". However, I find it interesting that this question regarding closed primaries has hardly been explored on DU, considering it has direct bearing on the upcoming decision regarding Florida and Michigan.


I started thinking about this after listening to Hillary's speech today, where she said:

"The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear, if any votes aren't counted, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

It was interesting to me how, here, she equated the primaries to the general election. But are the goals of these two contests really the same? Is the goal of each really democracy? To hear the voices of everyone who wishes to be heard?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I would appreciate it if we could keep the discussion civil. Let's remember that we're all Democrats.

:grouphug:


Edited to place "Democratic" in parentheses in the title, lest people misinterpret that I am questioning the legitimacy of our primary elections. "Valid" and "democratic" are two different issues.

[NewHampshireDem]

1. I love your question, but hate the underlying assumption

Don't buy into the argument that this is about making every vote count. It isn't. It's about HRC winning by any means necessary.

That is all.

[Barack_America]

3. I tried to leave it open.

I just wanted to pose the question to the community at large and not interject my opinion. Besides, I've made a pledge to be non-divisive in honor of Ted Kennedy, and I intend to keep it.

[msallied]

13. deleted sub-thread

[The Magistrate]

2. 'Closed' Primaries Are Right And Proper, Ma'am

Selection of a party's candidate is the business of the party, and only those who adhere to the party in question have any business participating in the decision.

[New Dawn]

I agree.

Independents can vote for whoever they want in the general election. If they want primaries they can join a party or start their own.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Which means, by extention

That the parties should pay for their own damned primary elections and stop stealing money from the public.

[Barack_America]

14. Another interesting point. n/t

[hayu_lol]

8. Thank you Magistrate...

The Democratic Party Primary should be restricted to members of the Democratic Party.

If you are Green, Independent, Other Left, (gasp)Repugnant and still yet others, form your own party and support your own candidate.

If the Primary is open, we can never know who is supporting the sort of platform we stand on.

[msallied]

16. It's not that simple.

Third parties will never be viable in this country BECAUSE of the restrictions put on them to even participate in the process. It's engineered like this on purpose, of course. We will always do everything we can to ensure we're a two-party-only system. This has its advantages, of course. But it's not "democratic" as the OP asked. Of course, America is not a democracy in the traditional sense, so I'm not all that indignant about it.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. I disagree

third-parties will never be viable simply and only because of the winner-take-all system. It's not ballot access, public funding, or any other excuse.

In any winner-take-all system, there will, by necessity, be two factions.

[msallied]

32. Good point. I agree with that.

And while I largely agree with proportional systems, it would completely change the paradigm of the American government if we moved to that system for general elections. As we're seeing now with the Democratic primary, we would see a similar result at the electoral level, and if I remember correctly, when things get tied up in the electoral college, it gets pretty messy. Allowing third parties into this would then lead to creations of coalitions within the government, etc, which could destabilize things further. See Israel or Italy's governments as examples. Of course, Germany seems to have a very solid government, and I think they elect their leader in a proportional system. but then again, these are Parliamentary systems as well, which are also inherently different than what we've got here.

Of course... I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, but it would definitely change our government into something not even remotely resembling its former self, and I think that those who enjoy the power of the 2-party system would fight it tooth and nail.

[Barack_America]

9. I didn't question whether they were "right".

I agree that a party has the right to conduct its personal contests however it sees fit.

I questioned whether or not we could claim them to be "democratic". That, to me, is an entirely different issue. Are "democratic" elections even the goal of primaries to begin with? And please note that I don't fault the party if "no" is the answer. I just think we need to be honest about that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Yes, they are demoncratic

because all members of the party are invited to vote. That non-members are barred from voting doesn't make the process less democratic. To argue otherwise would be the same as saying that everyone in the world must be allowed to vote in every election in the world or those elections are not democratic.

[Barack_America]

36. Was that title a freudian slip?

"Demoncratic"? ;)

The way I would characterize Democratic primaries being more democratic (with the little "d") is if they offered for everyone interested in voting for their candidate in the fall to be able cast a vote to choose who that candidate might be.

Now, I say this knowing fully that this won't necessarily work for many reasons (bs like "Operation Chaos" being a perfect example). So I think that it's fine for us to keep our primaries as they are, but just take pause in declaring them "democratic".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. More a typo

caused by very tired fingers. But you know, asking about the "democratic" process in the primary and getting all worked up about it is rather--well--ironic, since the general election is anything BUT democratic. For one thing, we never vote for President. We vote for electors, who don't even have to vote for the person who wins the most votes in their state or district (that's for ME and NE)--it rarely happens, since most electors are politicos for their party. And another thing--with the exception of ME and NE, the electors are "winner take all", which has resulted in Presidents elected with a minority of the popular vote.

[Barack_America]

38. I was totally just having a bit of fun there.

I knew it was a typo.

And this doesn't actually work me up. I like these lofty questions where there's really no right or wrong, but plenty of room for everyone to chime in. So, ironically, having a more thoughtful conversation on GD-P actually calms me down considerably.

Well, that and the wine I'm drinking. ;)

[rpannier]

4. Yes they are Democratic

Having closed primaries does not prevent people from voting, it protects the integrity of our Party and it ensures that the nominee of the Democratic Party is the choice of Democrats.

Non-affiliated voters can still vote on propositions and initiatives during the primary season, they just can't choose OUR nominee.

In the general election they get to vote as well.

If they want to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is, then register Democratic.
They made a decision not to register as a Democrat or a republikkan, so they should be prevented from voting in either Party's primary.

[PassingFair]

20. Especially in heavily Rethuglican states....

If their candidates are chosen early, they are
free to fuck with our nomination process...

Of course this could never happen.

Oh, wait...

It just did!

Indiana, seems like just last week...

Oh, wait....

It WAS.

[newmajority]

6. Independents have to vote for someone, so they should have access to "party" ballots.

I don't consider it to be illegitimate in anyway for an independent to vote for a Democratic candidate in the primary. Or even a Republican candidate, should they be crazy enough to do so.

But in states which require party registration, if you register as a "Democrat" in the primary, then you should be bound to that party registration at least through that election cycle. That way, you couldn't have the Mush Limpdick inspired "Operation KKKhaos" types voting as "registered Democrats" and then changing their registration back to Repukes before November.

[Orangepeel]

7. if somebody wants to have a say in choosing the Democratic candidate, why can't they register Dem?

There are some states that don't have party registration, but of course, those states don't have closed primaries. And, there are people who don't feel that they can register with a party because of their jobs and whatnot.

But in general, I'm on board with the idea of closed primaries. It would be more democratic not to have political parties at all. But as long as nominees represent poetical parties and serve as the leader of that party, they should be chosen by people who identify with that party.

[Barack_America]

11. Why MUST they register Dem?

When they don't have to register as anything for the general.

I guess that's the easy rebuttal.

Please note that I'm not question whether our Democratic primaries are VALID, I'm just questioning whether or not we have the right to assign them the term DEMOCRATIC.

[rinsd]

10. Primaries are for choosing a party's candidate & should only be open to party members.

I am willing to make exceptions for Decline to State voters but my feeling after this election is if you want a hand in deciding a party's nominee join the party.

[Barack_America]

12. I agree wholeheartedly that such elections are valid....

But do they really pass the test of being "democratic"?

[msallied]

19. American politics isn't really "democratic" anyway.

At least in the direct sense. We're a republic. A representative democracy. And in a sense, the current rules adhere to this country's tradition of selecting its leaders. In fact, they're probably even more "democratic" than they used to be, given that Presidential candidates used to be selected by Congress.

[muddrunner17]

24. The real question you are getting at is

whether or not a two party system is democratic. Do the parties adaquately represent the views of their members? Having two dominant parties has pretty much pushed other parties aside until they can become mainstream enough to pull a significant number of votes from both the Dems and Repubs. Most of the parties tend to only pull from one. Look at Nader and Perrot as examples.

I would argue that our entire election system in not very democratic. The electoral college is not democratic as evidenced by the presidents that have been elected without the majority of the popular vote.

On the other hand, looking at the recent election in Russia and other systems, we're better off than many.

[msallied]

28. Yes, we are. Direct democracies are dangerous things.

The forefathers were right to avoid them.

[msallied]

15. Hell no they're not. But both parties love them anyway.

Because it ensures that the two party system maintains complete control over the nominee-selection process in this country. Who it mainly disenfranchises is independent voters or those who feel under-represented by either party.

Of course, a-holes like Rush Limbaugh have undoubtedly done a great job in advancing the "closed-primary system as a standard" idea a bit further, given what happened with Operation Chaos. In fact, I won't be surprised if in future elections it will be harder for even party members to participate in their own primaries due to fears of voter fraud.

[Barack_America]

17. .

I liked the point you proposed as well about sticking to one assignment for an election cycle. That was interesting.

In any case, I guess what I'm trying to get at here (in a non-divisive way ;)) is whether honoring the Florida and Michigan primaries is really about "democracy" or about merely settling a party squabble.

[msallied]

21. It's about setting a party squabble, first and foremost.

There is no Constitutional provision for primaries. This is about party rules and the people who got fucked by them. lol

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Yes, they are, and here's why:

The primary is to choose a candidate of a particular group to represent that group in a general election. So only folks of that group, who have shown in some way (from declaring their political party to donating to working on campaigns)should vote. They know what their party stands for, and they alone should decide the candidate that best fills their ideals.

Let's use a union election for an analogy: in a union election, only members of the local are allowed to vote. What actions the union takes will, no doubt, have an effect on the company where the members work. So should the election be opened to management? Both management and labor have a vested interest in making the company successful. I think you would agree that it would likely lead to the destruction of the union if outsiders were allowed to vote. I realize the analogy is not exact, but to my mind it is close enough to show what I believe to be true: the very concept of what our government should be is very different between the Dems and the GOPs.

[Barack_America]

23. Where that analogy breaks down...

(although I like it)

Is that the management will never participate in that election, whereas in our election system, independent voters are often excluded from the first half, but eligible for the second half.

Again, I think that our Democratic primaries are completely Kosher. We have the right to conduct them however we see fit. But I'm not sure we can technically call them "democratic".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. You are right

I realized it wasn't an exact analogy--but here's a thought. The customers of a company aren't allowed to vote in either union elections or the Board Room (assuming they aren't stock holders), and yet the customers "vote" on whether a company is successful or not. Still not an exact analogy, but another way of looking at it.

[msallied]

26. You make a good point. It only sucks when

there are millions of people getting lost in the shuffle because they don't feel represented by either party. Of course, I am well aware of the advantages of the two-party system, namely that they are generally more stable governments), but I see an inherent problem of disallowing Americans from having a part in selecting their representatives based merely on the fact that they didn't sign a pledge to a specific party. That just seems kind of fascist to me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. You're brnging up another point

and I agree that it is ridiculous that we don't have viable third parties in this country. If we did, I truly think it would be nearly impossible for Big Business to buy off everyone.

BTW, looks like I'm going to vote Green for our Congressional election (the Dems have no nominee)--so I'm really glad that there ARE third parties around. Otherwise there would be no choice for AR-3.

[msallied]

34. Libertarians have a very strong presence here in WA

and I've voted for a few of them. That's the thing about third parties. They will always be viable at the local/state level. It's just at the Federal when it gets tricky. lol

But real change starts from the ground up here. That's the beauty about America. There is a lot you can do to enact change in your own backyard.

[nickinSTL]

25. If you argue they're not...

then, logically, everyone should be able to vote in all primaries being held...in other words, I should have been able to choose not only between Obama and Clinton (and the other Dems who were still on the ballot in my state, despite having dropped out) but also between McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul.

Personally, I think it would be better to limit all primaries to those who register for that party - I particularly dislike the idea of Repubs having a chance to decide who the Dem nominee is. Maybe allow independents to vote for both parties, but count their votes in some alternate manner.

:shrug: not saying that's a good idea, just a thought.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. People aren't disenfranchised

if they want to vote in a Democratic primary, they can become democrats. Nobody's preventing them from doing so.

I think there's nothing wrong with parties deciding who their candidates will be.

[msallied]

30. This is probably why candidates were originally selected by Congress.

Sure, it's not "democratic" but it's a hell of a lot less messy.

[housewolf]

35. Well, our whole system is really a "representational democracy" not a "direct democracy"

For all federal elections, we do not vote directly for a candidate so we're not a direct democracy. In the General Election, our votes are to express our preference as to who our state's Electors (who make up the Electoral College) will vote for. In the primaries, our votes determine are for delegates who then go on to District, County & State and the National Convention to select the party's nominee.

So are the primaries democratic, yes, in my opinion... because they are a result of "the people's" votes. But it's not a "direct democracy" process. It never has been. Unfortunately many folks are mis-informed about the true nature of our democratic system and believe that it's a "direct democracy". It's not. It's a representational democracty process.

As others have stated in this thread, primaries are for the party members to express their opinion as to who the nominee of the party should be. INHO, if independents or others want to have an say in the matter, they should register for the party.