Why closed primaries are undemocratic

[Blue Meany]

The number delegates allotted to a state in the Democratic Party is not based on the number of Democrats or the number of Democratic voters. They are based on:

(a) sum of the vote for the Democratic presidential ticket in the state in the three most recent presidential elections relative to the national Democratic vote in the three most recent elections and;

(b) state electoral vote relative to national electoral vote.

These are weighted equally, so the the number of Democratic delegates per state is based on the overall population of the state, and the number of persons who voted for the Democratic candidate for President. Both of these categories include people across the political spectrum--not just Democrats. For this reason, the votes in closed primaries are weighted more heavily than those that are cast in primaries open to members of all parties and to unaffiliated voters.

This can be added to caucuses and super-delegates as undemocratic aspects of the primary system in need of reform.

[seabeyond]

1. I do not care. I want to elect a Democratic candidate. Lol. Seriously? I WANT the decks STACKED

that I get a Democrat.

Geeezzzzz......

[Bad Dog]

2. The whole system is undemocratic.

Bush lost the popular vote to Gore. You need to introduce one member one vote.

[brooklynite]

21. ...which has nothing to do with the Primary process

[Bad Dog]

22. Really?

It seems that each state has its own rules about who can and who can't vote. OMOV gets rid of all that, speeds up the process which gets rid of all the internecine backbiting.

[brooklynite]

37. Primary elections are the decision of a Party and its members...

OMOV applies to the General Election when the respective Parties put up their candidates.

[Bad Dog]

41. There's no reason why OMOV can't apply to choosing a presidential candidate.

[beachbumbob]

3. Been this way for decades and it's only an issue to those who

Wish to operate outside of the system...

[CrowCityDem]

4. We aren't a democracy. We're a republic. Makes a difference about your complaint.

[KingFlorez]

5. There is a good reason for closed primaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Metzger_%28white_supremacist%29#Electoral_history

Do we really want to risk the Democratic line for any office going to the wrong sort of person?

[JaneyVee]

6. Closed primaries. Dem voters should decide Dem nominee.

[Stuckinthebush]

9. Yep.

The argument that everyone should have a say in who will be our candidate is ludicrous.

[MBS]

35. Ame. n/t

[NobodyHere]

7. It's democratic to Members of the Democratic party.

Not sure why one feels the inherent right to vote in a party's primary w/o being a member of that party.

[LonePirate]

8. It sounds like you are arguing to allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries

If you want open primaries, then you need to allow them as well otherwise the primaries are still closed and undemocratic based on your criteria.

[Blue Meany]

10. Either open them or distribute them according to the number of registered Democrats n/t

[Eric J in MN]

15. 22 states have no party registration.

In almost half-the-states, including Minnesota, we manage fine without it.

If a state has closed primaries and a long freeze on party-switching, like NY, that means both sincere and insincere people are kept from voting.

If a state has closed primaries and a short freeze on party-switching, then neither sincere nor insincere people are kept from voting, and so the party-registration system isn't accomplishing anything.

[B Calm]

24. I been voting in open primary Indiana for years without any problems.

[OKNancy]

11. I don't want non- union members voting in those elections

and I sure as heck don't want people who can't bother to register and be a member of the Democratic party to vote in our primary.
Democrats vote for Democrats, Republicans for their candidates, Libertarians for members of their party, and Independents for those who are on the ballot labeled as Independents.

[B Calm]

25. That would be great limiting primary voters only to union members. Only

one problem though and that would be limiting voters to 6.7% workers who belong to a labor union.

[Tarc]

12. There are people who work and toil within the party for years

and their voices count a bit more than johnny-come-latelies who cannot even be bothered with a simple registration process.

Join or move along, IMO.

[Blue Meany]

13. Your missing the point...

The delegates are not distributed based on the number of registered Democrats in a state. Consequently, the vote of someone in a heavily Republican state counts for more than the vote of someone in a heavily Democratic state; and who that vote in a closed primary count for more than those in an open primary. There is no way this is fair.

[Tarc]

14. "You're"

Too bad.

Register as a Democrat, it's not rocket science.

[Eric J in MN]

17. Do you support NY state's 6 month freeze on party-switching before the primaries? NT

NT

[Tarc]

18. Yes, as it minimizes cross-party tomfoolery

[Eric J in MN]

19. It also minimizes the number of people who join the Democratic Party in an election year. NT

NT

[Tarc]

20. If those people cannot read and follow simple rules to register by a certain date

then perhaps we're better off.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Show evidence of such 'tomfoolery'. It's like Republicans shouting about voter fraud and demanding

Voter ID when there really is no such fraud. NY has the lowest turnout among blue States and is regularly in the bottom five of all States for turnout. There are a variety of reasons for that.

My State, Oregon, has a closed Primary and we regularly get some of the best turnout in the country, very easily double NY's crappy ass turnout. And that's true in non Primary elections as well, NY hardly votes in midterms, in local elections.
In the 1950's NYC had 92% turnout for mayoral election. Last time it was 24%. Not good.

In a State in which fewer than 30% of the people can manage to vote at all, it is very hard to believe there are significant numbers of people committed enough to do 'cross party tomfoolery'. They don't even vote in their own Parties. Apathy is the NY state of mind, not activism. But you fear 'tomfoolery' which you can't demonstrate.

In the current cycle, only Louisiana has had turnout wore than NY's.

[SFnomad]

16. Call the waaaaaambulance ... stat! n/t

[B Calm]

23. A closed primary is limiting political freedom, and is right wing authoritarian.

With 50% of voters now registered as independents because they feel their party no longer represents them, you would think party leaders would welcome them in the primary. So much for being inspired by a democratic candidate you can't vote for.

Seeing how independents will have a say in the general election, and will be voting for the nominee that the party nominates, it makes sense that they should have a say in who that nominee that they are voting for is. A closed primary is limiting political freedom and shrinking our democratic party.

[-none]

38. Correct. What is missing from closed primaries, is the will of the people.

The will of the people are what elections are supposed to be all about.
With closed primaries, the will of the authoritarians in charge (read here as Debbie DINO) is paramount, that is why they like closed primaries. It is their choice over the choice of the people.

[B Calm]

27. Why the DNC keeps getting away with cramming shitty candidates down our throats.

[B Calm]

29. I prefer to stay for spite!

[B Calm]

31. I prefer to change rules to the better and grow the democratic base. You

are suggesting that I leave the party and thus shrink the Democratic base.

[B Calm]

33. If you are a true democrat you would be concerned about

any democrats leaving the party. Sometimes I wonder what people like you real agenda is on DU.

[scepticism]

36. Unfortunately open primaries let Republicans mess up our elections

I have mixed feelings about letting Republicans vote in our primaries in order to prop up a weak candidate.

It also seems like this cycle has demonstrated open primaries tending to support the more extreme candidate on both sides of the isle.

I think open primaries would be good if they encouraged a more moderate candidate but it doesn't seem like this is actually the case.

Perhaps polarization of the electorate is just too far gone to allow open primaries.

[B Calm]

42. and democrats can mess up their elections. The truth is

it rarely happens. If the party DNC would only quit ramming shitty candidates like Hillary down our throats, maybe the working class liberal wing could once again regain control of the party.

[marble falls]

43. And closed primaries ignore the votes of small i independents.

[metamorphosis]

39. Ok, yes, & let's consider which TYPE (open, closed, etc.) of primary would be ideal.

1. we all agree, one imagines, that Oregon leads the way with all voters being registered and able to send in their vote each election. easy, no voter suppression. If they allow independent voters to vote, I'd consider Oregon ideal.

2. There's a big step down from Oregon, although some states do allow same day registration, and are open to independents, and have little or no voter suppression (voter id requirements, etc.).

3. we could/should start a movement among like minded people to make everyone registered to vote once attaining the age of 18, with no other requirements other than registering (open to all). zero voter suppression, all welcome.

4. why are open primaries better than closed primaries? There was once a time when the two parties had 80% of all voters affiliated with one or the other. In such cases, there could be mischief, with thousands of GOP voting in Democrats and wreaking havoc.

5. but non-aligned independent voters now outnumber both dems and reps, and if either party refused to allow independent voters to participate in their primaries, they alienate those indepednent voters, and they squander the opportunity to welcome specific independent voters abord for the next election.

6. in fact, it may turn out to be the party which gets the most independents voting in their primaries that will surge out ahead in upcoming primaires.

7. we could ask all states to schedule primaries if they can afford doing so. If not, a list of practices could be set forth to make any remaining caucuses fair and neutral.

8. demcratic states in the US South should sprinkle their primary dates out more widely so that their influence is so extreme as it has been this year.

[Blue Meany]

40. However it is done, each vote should be equal

and it quite unequal now. It give more weight to votes in closed primaries and in states with a small percentage of Democrats.

For example, in the current primary, it took 5701 votes to elect a delegate in Mississippi and 13,158 to elect one in Illinois. How anyone can say that is fair, I don't know.

[Garrett78]

44. Open primaries are ripe for manipulation, though.

With an open primary, there are going to be disingenuous people who participate solely for the sake of furthering contention among candidates from the political party they oppose. People who cast a vote for the underdog in a particular state for the purpose of making the results closer than they would be otherwise. These are not people who would actually vote for, say, Sanders in the general election were he to be the nominee. These are saboteurs.

How many such primary voters there are is not clear, but it'd be foolish to think they don't exist and can't have a substantial impact on the results of open primaries.