HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » We Should Only Let Democr...

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:02 PM

We Should Only Let Democrats Choose Our Nominee

I don't understand the point of letting non-Democrats participate in choosing our parties nominee. Republicans rarely allow open primaries, yet Democrats use them in several states.

Likewise, in a large state like Washington what is the point of a caucus that only a few Democrats can participate in? I can understand a caucus in a smaller, less urban state, but a caucus disenfranchises Democrats who cannot devote the time to attend.

The vote of several WA electors chosen through a caucus that went for Bernie even though Hillary won that State's primary for a Republican illustrates how the system works to disenfranchise Democrats.

I don't mind getting rid of superdelegates, but we should get rid of open primaries and most caucuses, except for smaller rural states.

172 replies, 10894 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 172 replies Author Time Post
Reply We Should Only Let Democrats Choose Our Nominee (Original post)
TomCADem Dec 2016 OP
asuhornets Dec 2016 #1
TomCADem Dec 2016 #3
asuhornets Dec 2016 #9
Gothmog Dec 2016 #108
asuhornets Dec 2016 #122
Gothmog Dec 2016 #147
asuhornets Dec 2016 #148
lapucelle Dec 2016 #84
shenmue Dec 2016 #63
MFM008 Dec 2016 #2
immoderate Dec 2016 #4
Zing Zing Zingbah Dec 2016 #17
hollowdweller Dec 2016 #5
TomCADem Dec 2016 #7
Joe941 Dec 2016 #12
SidDithers Dec 2016 #19
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #81
Maven Dec 2016 #33
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #36
Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #165
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #79
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #80
brush Dec 2016 #104
oasis Dec 2016 #6
RDANGELO Dec 2016 #8
asuhornets Dec 2016 #10
truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #60
lapucelle Dec 2016 #86
gklagan Dec 2016 #153
lapucelle Dec 2016 #154
gklagan Dec 2016 #157
lapucelle Dec 2016 #163
Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #169
asuhornets Dec 2016 #123
JHan Dec 2016 #128
JudyM Dec 2016 #113
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #119
JudyM Dec 2016 #129
mtnsnake Dec 2016 #11
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #15
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #13
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #49
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #52
lapucelle Dec 2016 #89
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #91
lapucelle Dec 2016 #98
lapucelle Dec 2016 #88
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #96
lapucelle Dec 2016 #97
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #100
JustinL Dec 2016 #118
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #139
JustinL Dec 2016 #140
lapucelle Dec 2016 #149
NewJeffCT Dec 2016 #146
SaschaHM Dec 2016 #14
Chasstev365 Dec 2016 #16
TomCADem Dec 2016 #20
24601 Dec 2016 #18
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #21
NeoConsSuck Dec 2016 #22
truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #64
The_Voice_of_Reason Dec 2016 #23
LisaL Dec 2016 #50
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #78
mythology Dec 2016 #111
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #126
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #24
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #28
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #30
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #35
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #38
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #39
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #42
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #46
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #93
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #37
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #45
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #48
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #53
truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #67
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #34
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #71
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #94
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #99
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #106
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #54
napi21 Dec 2016 #25
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #26
David__77 Dec 2016 #27
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #152
David__77 Dec 2016 #161
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #29
guillaumeb Dec 2016 #31
24601 Dec 2016 #159
guillaumeb Dec 2016 #160
Maven Dec 2016 #32
Ken Burch Dec 2016 #40
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #44
Ken Burch Dec 2016 #55
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #58
Ken Burch Dec 2016 #68
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #92
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #72
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #95
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #41
truthaddict247 Dec 2016 #65
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #77
potone Dec 2016 #85
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #124
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #69
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #73
karynnj Dec 2016 #43
LisaL Dec 2016 #47
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #51
LeftInTX Dec 2016 #171
Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #56
sab390 Dec 2016 #57
bravenak Dec 2016 #59
jfern Dec 2016 #61
NastyRiffraff Dec 2016 #62
vi5 Dec 2016 #66
LLStarks Dec 2016 #70
SaschaHM Dec 2016 #74
LLStarks Dec 2016 #75
SaschaHM Dec 2016 #76
meow2u3 Dec 2016 #82
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #87
meow2u3 Dec 2016 #101
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #102
meow2u3 Dec 2016 #105
Gothmog Dec 2016 #109
PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2016 #83
Cha Dec 2016 #90
BlueCaliDem Dec 2016 #103
Gothmog Dec 2016 #107
Arazi Dec 2016 #110
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #114
TransitJohn Dec 2016 #112
Gothmog Dec 2016 #115
Kentonio Dec 2016 #116
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #117
Kentonio Dec 2016 #120
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #121
Kentonio Dec 2016 #131
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #144
frazzled Dec 2016 #135
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #143
totodeinhere Dec 2016 #125
TomCADem Dec 2016 #142
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #150
TomCADem Dec 2016 #155
bowens43 Dec 2016 #127
TomCADem Dec 2016 #132
vi5 Dec 2016 #130
TomCADem Dec 2016 #133
vi5 Dec 2016 #136
TomCADem Dec 2016 #137
vi5 Dec 2016 #138
TomCADem Dec 2016 #141
Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #134
gopiscrap Dec 2016 #164
Berlin Vet Dec 2016 #167
George II Dec 2016 #145
hrmjustin Dec 2016 #151
Vinca Dec 2016 #156
gklagan Dec 2016 #158
Garrett78 Dec 2016 #162
Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #166
Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #168
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2016 #170
PotatoChip Dec 2016 #172

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:03 PM

1. I completely agree.....n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:08 PM

3. Wonder where Ellison and Perez stand on these issues...

...this should be clearly addressed, particularly in light of Democratic electors voting for a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:20 PM

9. Perez probably feels the same way...Ellison, i'm not sure-he was a Bernie supporter..

although nothing is wrong with that, but we can't have a repeat in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:07 PM

108. Sanders got many of his "victories" in non-democratic caucuses

I feel strongly that caucuses need to go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:02 PM

122. So do I. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 09:30 AM

147. Sanders so-called victories were mostly in caucus states

Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/
Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders would not do well without caucuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #147)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 09:43 AM

148. If Sanders could not beat Hillary in the Democratic primaries, why would they think

Sanders would have beaten Trump? Sanders campaign did nothing to help Democrats, only himself..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:44 PM

84. I think that those Democrats who voted for Powell

were Hamilton electors who settled on him as a Republican consensus candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:12 PM

63. Me too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:07 PM

2. I hate caucus

Hate hate hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:08 PM

4. I disagree.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:38 PM

17. I would like the primaries for all parties to be open to all Americans

I would like to be able to participate in the candidate selection of all parties. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. General public would not have selected Trump. If everyone can decide who runs, the candidates will be more moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:12 PM

5. I'm for closed primaries too

 


I think that democrats alone tend to choose losers though so while i think it will result in more candidates like Clinton who are unable to win under the current electoral college system, I think allowing anybody to vote in a dem primary is wrong.

But maybe if we do closed primaries and lose more races then we will choose candidates based not on who has the most money and connections, like Kerry and Hillary and instead vote on the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:17 PM

7. Getting Rid of Superdelegates Will Moderate This...

Of course, if Republicans had superdelegates, we would not have had Trump. Still, taking away superdelegates would limit the head start of an insider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:24 PM

12. This. Bernie would have won and tRump would be a distant memory right now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:49 PM

19. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:00 PM

81. + a bajillion!!!!!! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:15 PM

33. Except, no he wouldn't have.

And no he wouldn't be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:21 PM

36. Superdelegates aren't the reason Sanders lost.

And without caucuses, the primary wouldn't have been even remotely close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:32 AM

165. No, he would have gotten beat worse than Hillary

 

His tax plan (for instance a typical suburban couple grossing 60K a piece would pay 16.5K usd more per year under Sanders than Clinton and 23K usd MORE per year under Sanders than Trump) and his falsely self-labeling as democratic socialist (when he is NOT one, he is a proponent of social democracy, huge difference) in reactionary, red-baiting, mouth-breathing USA would have decimated his chances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:57 PM

79. If Republicans had

primaries where delegates were awarded based on the proportional representation of the vote, Trump would perhaps not have won the GOP primaries.

And if Electoral College votes were awarded based on proportional representation instead of winner-take-all, we might also have had a different result in the 2016 election. But neither was to be.

One irony of SDs is that while they have been around for several election cycles, the only times any attention has really been paid to them were in 2008 and 2016. Another irony is that Bernie's campaign manager was one of those who instituted the SD system and yet he railed against the system big-time when his candidate was in the losing column. It would had been *crickets* otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:59 PM

80. Dems do not choose losers,

but they get attacked both from the GOPers and those who are further left "purists" than most center-left Dems are.

They also get absolutely no help from the M$M. GOPers get away with everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:34 AM

104. You're missing the huge elephant in the room. Clinton, Kerry and Gore had elections stolen . . .

from them by repug cheating.

That's what has to change and we all need to get on board and start talking up and pushing this issue until we get attention paid to it, including getting rid of that relic from slavery, the electoral college which is still continuing it's original mission, tipping the scale towards racists to help them win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:16 PM

6. 100% agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:17 PM

8. Approximately 30% percent of the electorate is registered as independent

Most of them agree with us on issues such as global warming and income inequality. In the last election, we nominated a candidate who was severely underwater in her favorability with independents before she even got the nomination. The reasons she had the deficit wasn't because of her stance on the issues. I believe this played a big part in her losing the election. At a time when such a large portion of the electorate is independent, having closed primaries is incredibly negligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:22 PM

10. I disagree..Democrats did not benefit from allowing Independents into the party..Not one bit...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:01 PM

60. exactly

 

That's the problem. You don't persuade independents and millenials like myself with that attitude and that process of non -inclusion until the final hour and then attempt to convince us to vote for the democrat because their candidate is less horrible. Don't depend the independents for vital votes in the Senate to overcome the filibuster or other procedural hurdles and then expect their vote without even the decency of acting like you know them come the big party.

Has anyone learned anything ?

It's 2017 shortly, times have changed. And, it's time to understand that today's voters, especially millenials, eschew labels and will demand elected officials fight for our votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:01 PM

86. One thing I've learned is that some millenials

(among others) should have listened to older folks who remember how Bush became president. We remember when environmental activist / Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore was cast in the role of the "lesser of two evils".

Instead of demanding that elected officials fight for their vote, people should be demanding that elected officials fight to reinstate the voting rights of those disenfranchised by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:16 PM

153. nope.

your first point seems to be rehashing the 3rd party = spoiler foolishness. Green and libertarian votes are not votes Dem candidates are entitled to any more than Dems are entitled to republican votes. So I'm going to ignore that nonsense.

your second point is frivolous deflection. Obviously we all need to move public policy away from vote suppression. Fighting voter suppression is separate from demanding that candidates represent us and these two things are not mutually exclusive. I can, and do, do both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gklagan (Reply #153)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:36 PM

154. Yup. That's why President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Sanders himself

begged gullible spoilers not to play into Trump's hands by staying home or voting third party. They could have been heroes and chose to act like entitled narcissists instead. They deserve every measure of contempt that they will be facing for at least the next four years.

It is good to know that you are working hard to fight voter suppression. I spent September and October weekends in a swing state far from my home state re-registering voters who were thrown off the rolls due to new laws enabled by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and devising election day transportation plans for working class and working poor voters for whom getting to the polls is a genuine hardship.

There are too many keyboard warriors who confuse commenting on blogs with genuine activism. It's commendable that you were on the ground helping the disenfranchised to recoup and exercise their rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #154)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 03:01 PM

157. They're voting for a different Party because they don't like the Democratic Party

I've talked to a lot of Greens and Libertarians. They aren't Dems and no one should count on them to vote Dem. Just like we don't expect republicans to vote Dem. Condescending to people isn't going to change minds and get people to come around to the Dem platform, party, or candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gklagan (Reply #157)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 06:38 PM

163. Nobody truly counted on people from other parties to vote Democratic.

What people did expect was that those who claimed to be Democrats during the primary would support the most progressive platform in decades by actually showing up on election day and voting Democratic in the general.

I have absolutely no respect for Stein & Co. after the way they illegally purchased the convention credentials of Sanders delegates who were going home after the first day. The use of illegally obtained credentials to advance the deliberate disruption of my party's convention in order to draw votes away from my party's nominee was the very depth of unethical behavior.

And while it may be somewhat productive to speak of better engaging with non-Democrats like Greens and Libertarians, I think most people realize that the problem this cycle was the BoBs and the lazy, entitled no-show bitter knitters who were played and pwned by pretty much everyone except the woman they refused to vote for. They were instrumental in putting Trump in the White House, and 65,000,000+ angry voters know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 09:32 AM

169. Yeah, keep blaming millennials.

That'll turn out well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:06 PM

123. What about the bad attitudes of millinials and independents who voiced very loudly not voting for...

her and did not. We are adults pick the best candidate--period. Our Democratic presidential candidate is better than any republican. Why do they need to be coddled, no one coddled me. I chose the best candidate, it is as simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:42 PM

128. well, I'm a millennial and my view is very different:

I'm well aware of my responsibilities - I can make judgments about who will advance my causes - maybe not 100% of all the things I want but most of the things I want.

It's a simple strategy of understanding who the enemy is: Our opponent is the GOP, they have wrought enough pain across legislatures and states. A progressive platform - whether 50% progressive , or 60 or 70 is infinitely better than risking the election of officials who have zero progressive policies on theirs.

It's not rocket science - and the policies and details I get from a candidate allows me to hold them to account. I don't need them to rant and rave, I want them to be smart and deadly serious about implementing our objectives.

It's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:27 PM

113. Yep. We need to appeal to independents or we lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #113)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:57 PM

119. "Independents" aren't who so many seem to think they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:03 PM

129. Regardless of party "leaning" or not, Sanders pulled them in far more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:22 PM

11. 12 states do have closed primaries

including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, and 8 others.

21 other states have mixed primaries with stipulations involved for unaffiliated voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mtnsnake (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:29 PM

15. NJ is semi open

Unaffiliated voters may vote in the primary, however they cease being unaffiliated voters.

When I registered in NJ (right before Super Tuesday 08) they messed up my registration and accidentally put me in as unaffiliated. They told me to change it, vote in the primary of my choice. I've been in the system as a registered Democrat since.

However if a Republican wants to vote in the Democratic primary (or vice versa) then they have to change their party affiliation 45 days out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:25 PM

13. The Republicans do have open primaries

Not every state has partisan voter registration.


There are 4 types of primaries (excluding caucuses).

Closed--- only registered party members can vote in it. If you wish to register with the party, you must do so in advance
Semi-open--- primary is open to registered party members and unaffiliated voters. Should an unaffiliated choose to vote in the primary, they are automatically registered with the party. (In NJ, partisan voter registration must be changed 45 days out to vote in the primary)
Open--- Usually in states with no partisan voter registration. You can vote in any primary you want to. If runoffs happen, typically the runoffs are limited to people who voted in the initial primary.
Top two--- Primaries are not partisan at all and open. Top two advance to the general election. This can result in two Democrats or two Republicans being the general candidates

This varies state to state. If you wish for the system to change, work within your state.

I've heard Bernie Sanders people complain that the NY primary was closed (and it is, as a former NY unaffiliated voter). What the campaign should have done was a VR push to register people to vote in the primary. (Side note, I believe this rule also affected Ivanka Trump or one of her brothers). Voter registration deadlines are easy to find online and should be on any campaign calendar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:54 PM

49. The Sanders campaign did make such a push in New York.

 

There are closed primaries, and then there are absurdly closed primaries, such as New York's. It may be the only example.

In other closed primaries, a change of party affiliation takes effect something like 30 or 45 days before the primary, enabling the new party member to vote in the primary. In New York, there must elapse 30 days and then a general election. As a result, the deadline for changing for the April 2016 primary was in early October 2015 -- before even the first Democratic debate.

The Sanders campaign was well aware of this. In addition to online efforts, they were tabling. More than once, in September and early October, I saw Sanders volunteers at a table in Manhattan, with a big sign warning people about this idiotic rule.

There's a limit to how effective they could be, though. On DU, people had been arguing the merits of the candidates for months. Out in the real world, many voters hadn't even begun thinking about the primary. Some registered independents or Green Party members or the like might focus on the race as their own state's primary approached, or earlier when they read about the results from Iowa and New Hampshire, or even earlier than that if they watched the first debate and were inspired to want to vote for one of the candidates. These people would not pay attention to the reregistration push in October and would then find themselves out of luck.

Incidentally, the New York rule is the same for all primaries, including those for the state legislature, which are held in September. That means that, to vote in the primary -- which, in one of the many heavily Democratic or Republican districts, is often the only vote that matters -- a former independent had to have enrolled in that party some eleven months earlier.

One could argue that there are really 5 types of primaries. You need to add to your list, above the "Closed", the "Absurdly Closed". That category would have New York and perhaps no other state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:07 PM

52. I didn't realize NY was so absurdly closed

I last voted in NY in 2006.

NJ is at least reasonable that they let unaffiliated declare that day.

I'm glad the campaign put in the effort. I'm not in NY much these days, let alone the city so thanks for clarifying about their activities.

After talking to my mom (registered unaffiliated in NY), the state does have strict voter laws. No early voting, absentee only with a reason, etc. She's not normally one to speak out politically but she wants them to make their voting laws more liberal (I know Cuomo is interested in this too). Maybe their ridiculously closed primaries should be a part of a voter reform bill. The only thing about NY's laws that I like are late poll closing time (9pm) and preregistration. If not for pre-registration, I probably wouldn't have registered at 18.

When I was a senior in HS, the county board of elections came to my government class with a voting machine, showed us how it worked with a mock election, and preregistered anyone turning 18 before graduation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:41 PM

89. In NY, only those who can demonstrate

that they are truly vested in an organization are permitted to vote in that organization's election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 10:07 PM

91. I just checked the website-- 6 months out

For the 2016 presidential primary, the deadline was not in the same YEAR as the primary.

While I can appreciate the merits of a closed primary, I think the deadline is a little too far out. NY is typically not an early state on the Presidential calendar, and especially in presidential primaries, you don't know when the contest will be over. In NJ, to switch party affiliations (excluding unaffiliateds, so D to R or R to D) the deadline is 45 days out. Even doubling that to 90 days out would make more sense and at least put the deadline in the same year as the primary (and when people are thinking about it).

Let me also say that I think it is ridiculous that NY has different primaries for the presidential, other federal (congressional mostly) and state level races. 3 primaries in a year is insane (and expensive).

(I was born and raised in NY. Registered there from 1998-2006 but unaffiliated).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:32 AM

98. The deadline is never in the same year as the primary.

The rule is that you must formally declare party affiliation at least 25 days before the previous year's general election. This prevents unaffiliated voters from switching back and forth from one party to another in order to game the primary calendar.

NY's deadline for registering to vote in a general election are much more liberal. NY rules prevent the manipulation of party nominations while still affording those eligible to vote in the general election their right to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:26 PM

88. I live in NY and have been a registered Democrat for over 40 years.

Our primaries are not "absurdly closed". To vote in a party's primary, you have to have declared party affiliation before the most recent general election. The theory is that only those who are vested in the party should be allowed to choose that party's standard bearer.

The deadline to declare party affiliation in order vote in the April 19, 2016 primary was not eleven months before the race. It was October 9, 2015.

New voters had until March 25, 2016 to register for the primary and were allowed to declare party affiliation at the same time.

The NY deadline to register to vote in the general election was October 14, 2016.

Nobody games a NY primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:26 AM

96. I think six months or eleven months is absurd.

 

Why not just demand that everyone get a donkey tattoo, to show they're vested?

In the most recent cycle in New York, six months was the required lead time for the Presidential primary. Eleven months was the required lead time for the state legislative primary. If current rules remain in effect for the 2018 cycle, eleven months will also be the required lead time for the primary for Governor and the other top state offices.

I see good arguments on each side of the dispute over closed primaries. If the primary is to be restricted to registered party members, though, the rules concerning change of affiliation should not be unduly restrictive, which IMO New York's are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:13 AM

97. I think it's absurd when people who are not members of an organization

feel entitled to select that organization's representatives. The NY rules prevent "party shopping" from one primary election to the next. A voter cannot decide to be a one day Democrat for an April presidential primary and then change affiliation to be a one day Republican for the September state office primary.

Like I said, no one games a NY primary.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:37 AM

100. I don't disagree

I think to be fair the deadline for party switching should be the same deadline for candidate filings. That way the voters have the same calendar as the candidates when it comes to voting.

For their June 28 Congressional primary this year, candidates had to file by April 14.


NY's deadline for new voters is on par with many other states. It's not extremely liberal, but not extremely conservative either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:53 PM

118. when SCOTUS ruled on NY's requirement in 1973, all 3 of the solid liberals agreed that it was absurd

Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall all joined Justice Powell's dissent in Rosario v Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752. From pp. 768-770 (footnote omitted):

The inquiry thus becomes whether the instant statute, burdening as it does fundamental constitutional rights, can withstand the strict judicial scrutiny called for by our prior cases. The asserted state interest in this case is the prevention of party "raiding," which consists of the movement or "cross-over" by members of one party into another's primary to "defeat a candidate who is adverse to the interests they care to advance." The typical example is a member of one party deliberately entering another's primary to help nominate a weaker candidate, so that his own party's nominee might win more easily in the general election. A State does have an interest in preventing such behavior, lest

"the efficacy of the party system in the democratic process -- its usefulness in providing a unity of divergent factions in an alliance for power -- would be seriously impaired,"


Rosario v. Rockefeller, 458 F.2d 649, 652 (CA2). The court below held flatly that the state interest in deterring "raiding" was a "compelling" one. Ibid.

The matter, however, is not so easily resolved. The importance or significance of any such interest cannot be determined in a vacuum, but, rather, in the context of the means advanced by the State to protect it and the constitutionally sensitive activity it operates to impede. The state interest here is hardly substantial enough to sustain the presumption, upon which the statute appears to be based, that most persons who change or declare party affiliation nearer than eight to 11 months to a party primary do so with intent to raid that primary. Any such presumption assumes a willingness to manipulate the system which is not likely to be widespread.

Political parties in this country traditionally have been characterized by a fluidity and overlap of philosophy and membership. And citizens generally declare or alter party affiliation for reasons quite unconnected with any premeditated intention to disrupt or frustrate the plans of a party with which they are not in sympathy. Citizens customarily choose a party and vote in its primary simply because it presents candidates and issues more responsive to their immediate concerns and aspirations. Such candidates or issues often are not apparent eight to 11 months before a primary. That a citizen should be absolutely precluded so far in advance from voting in a party primary in response to a sympathetic candidate, a new or meaningful issue, or changing party philosophies in his State, runs contrary to the fundamental rights of personal choice and expression which voting in this country was designed to serve.

Whatever state interest exists for preventing cross-overs from one party to another is appreciably lessened where, as in the case of petitioners, there has been no previous affiliation with any political party. The danger of voters in sympathy with one party "raiding" another party is insubstantial where the voter has made no prior party commitment at all. Certainly, the danger falls short of the overriding state interest needed to justify denying petitioners, so far in advance, the right to declare an initial party affiliation and vote in the party primary of their choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:54 PM

139. Thanks, that's a very interesting analysis of the requirement.

 

With New York's multi-month requirement having been upheld, the constitutionality of shorter lead times will never come up. I'm guessing these dissenters would have been OK with something more typical like 30 days. They might have had trouble deciding where to draw the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #139)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:48 PM

140. the dissent hints at 30-60 days in the final paragraph

From p. 771 (footnote omitted):

Partisan political activities do not constantly engage the attention of large numbers of Americans, especially as party labels and loyalties tend to be less persuasive than issues and the qualities of individual candidates. The crossover in registration from one party to another is most often impelled by motives quite unrelated to a desire to raid or distort a party's primary. To the extent that deliberate raiding occurs, it is usually the result of organized effort which depends for its success upon some relatively immediate concern or interest of the voters. This type of effort is more likely to occur as a primary date draws near. If New York were to adapt a more reasonable enrollment deadline, say 30 to 60 days, the period most vulnerable to raiding activity would be protected. More importantly, a less drastic enrollment deadline than the eight or 11 months now imposed by New York would make the franchise and opportunities for legitimate party participation available to those who constitutionally have the right to exercise them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #140)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:48 AM

149. In addition, in 1973 we did campaigns and primaries very differently

in that we didn't get 24/7 news coverage beginning at least a year before any votes were even scheduled to be cast. If anything, the current situation weakens the dissent in that the assertion that "partisan political activities do not constantly engage the attention of large numbers of Americans" no longer holds.

This was a close decision, but it has stood for 40 years. Maybe someone who thinks the timetable is absurd and who was closed out of voting in NY's presidential primary should seek legal redress to test whether the decision would stand today.

I hope that those in NY who were closed out of voting in the 2016 presidential primaries will remember to register affiliation with a party before November 2019 so that it will not happen again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 09:30 AM

146. I think Connecticut is similar to NY

you need to register with a party well in advance in order to vote in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:27 PM

14. I won't get into the open/closed debate. I'd hope closed primaries are empowered (more delegates)

over open ones. Atleast during republican incumbency years to avoid ratscrewing.

That being said, it is time to get rid of the caucus. We can't claim to be for working people when we empower a process that disadvantages anyone who can't afford to stand around for 2-3 hours in the middle of the work week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:29 PM

16. LET IT GO!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:51 PM

20. This is the perfect time to tweak primary rules...

...you do not do it on the eve of an election. You need to give everyone lots of notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 02:45 PM

18. Interesting issue and I can see both sides. I've never liked the opposition meddling in

internal primary races. They rarely happen for altruistic reasons and more often are disruptive efforts intended to weaken the eventual candidate. On the other hand, we don't want to be exclusionary to the point that general election appeals to non-Democrats, especially those considered closely aligned, to fall on deaf ears because they have been alienated. It's all too clear that the Jill Steins, Ralph Naders and Gary Johnsons are ready and willing to welcome any & all voters in order to pursue their own agendas.

The issue is not just about voters, but about candidates. Sure enough, Senator Sanders is closely allied and will be in the Senate's minority leadership. I judge that general political agreement should be enough for the caucus membership, but it strikes me as falling short when it comes to leadership. Coalitions like we seen in European-style parliamentary systems lack the party discipline.

And when it comes to fielding candidates, I'd go further and support rules that require party membership before the 1st primary vote is cast as a condition of eligibility to run as a Democrat.

I have no doubt that these views will be embraced by Senator Sanders' supporters. But most of them are big D Democrats and he has chosen freely not to be one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:01 PM

21. 31 states have partisan registration

Here's a chart of them (2014 so a little dated)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/state-party-registration_n_5399977.html

Your open primaries are going to be in the other 19 states. I don't know how you would run a closed primary in a state without partisan registration (and many of those states are GOP controlled).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:10 PM

22. I agree

If I'm the manager of a baseball team, I'm not going to hand the lineup card to my opponent and have him fill it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:14 PM

64. except that's a lazy analogy

 

It's more like allowing the opponents back up and relief pitchers vote with your team. Not nearly as effective as u insinuate... And that's if their teams vote isn't close..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:41 PM

23. Agree Completely

If the DNC had not allowed Bernie Sanders to run as a Democrat, there is a very real chance Hillary Clinton would have won the White House...he was/is a very divisive person who tore our party apart.

Also, we need CLOSED PRIMARIES....if Independents want to help us chose our candidates, then they need to be LOYAL members of our party, not outside interlopers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Voice_of_Reason (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:54 PM

50. On the other hand, if he wasn't allowed to run as Democrat, he could have run as a third party.

The end result would have been the same-Trump elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:50 PM

78. It would more likely have been a plurality

with Hillary winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:02 PM

111. Only if she got to 270 Electoral College votes

 

If Sanders ran as more than a gadfly, he only would have taken votes away from Clinton. This is of course why he didn't run in the GE and said so from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #111)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:38 PM

126. The most hardline

BernieBro supporters are exactly like most Trump voters, much as they dispute that. They hate Clinton with an unjustified and inordinate passion resembling that of Trump's most zealous and most nasty supporters. F**k every single one of them!

But you are correct, Hillary would still have had to get to 270 electoral votes. Her husband did exactly that during the rancorous election in 1992 when his opponents were Bush I and Ross Perot. it is likely that Hillary would have too. But we'll never know.

What we do know is that there was skulduggery in "red"states, a M$M that bent over backwards to cast her in the nastiest light possible no matter what she said or did, 30+ years of nonstop, unjustified and generally false attacks by the Reich Wing, lots of fake news disparaging her, James Comey's treasonous acts and Russian interference in the election, etc.

Yet with all that, she STILL won nearly three million popular votes MORE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:54 PM

24. If you want closed primaries,

don't be too shocked when independents reject the person you chose as your nominee since you know, they didn't have a say in who it would be. I don't get the practicality of telling independents they don't matter one minute, then begging for their votes the next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:03 PM

28. Your post makes no sense.

 

If you want to be an independent fine, be one. Vote for whomever. If a person prefers right wing fascism over the Democratic Party Platform then they should not be here or even remotely attached to the party. Wish washy people who have no real moral compass should not have a voice in PARTY primary choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:11 PM

30. Your post doesn't make sense.

Most independents I know care about a specific candidate more than they care about a specific party. In a presidential election, voters are voting for a candidate, not a party. Some 43% of voters in the United States are registered independents. How is telling them that their voice doesn't matter in choosing a candidate practical and logical?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:19 PM

35. The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent."

Survey after survey after survey backs that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:27 PM

38. I'd be curious to see who they are asking in their surveys. I think it varies depending on

your geographical region. I'm from Maine and our voting patterns look odd to the outsider. The same people who voted for Obama voted for Republican Senator Susan Collins. The same people who voted for Democrat Chellie Pingree voted for Independent Angus King. We're much less beholden to party and look at the individual candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:30 PM

39. Around here that means "republican."

 

Your state or locale may vary. Aroumd here it is a way for the right wing cuckholds to feel like they are impartial and intelligent, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:37 PM

42. For some, it means Republican. For some, it means Democrat. Very few are swing voters.

And that's my point. More are Republicans than Democrats.

I suspect, though, that the vast majority of the "independents" taking part in Democratic primaries are of the Democratic variety. I think crossover voting is pretty rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:49 PM

46. Maybe so,

 

Is there anyone who keeps track?

I know in Ohio you can choose any party you wish for the primary. So if your party is running an incumbent you create a ot of havoc on the other side. Remember operation chaos?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:52 AM

93. I suspect there was a fair amount of crossover voting in Michigan.

Possibly enough to be the difference in a very tight race. But when it came time for Ohio a week later, those who might have crossed over didn't because they wanted to support Kasich in his home state.

I don't know, though, if anyone tracks how much crossover voting occurs in primaries/caucuses. Even if it might impact a contest or two, it wouldn't be substantial enough to alter the end result, especially with proportional allocation of delegates. With winner-take-all contests, it might be a different story.

I would hope we can all agree that caucuses need to be done away with, as they are disenfranchising. So many persons with jobs, kids or disabilities are going to be disinclined to participate in a caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:26 PM

37. Well then, form a party,

 

So the collective hive can have the desired candidate. Sounds quite simple to me. Don't like the Democratic Party or it's methods, join another party or create your own.

The special snowflakes will never be happy, ever. Compromise isn't a virtue they posses in my opinion. And most of the bobs I know voted trump or third party. One of the biggest problems with our party is it's penchant for coddling those who were never with us anyway.

In the end, if you want a voice when it comes to picking the democratic nominee, join the party, see how easy that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:45 PM

45. You talk about people failing to compromise,

yet you won't compromise in having open primaries so potential general election voters who might vote our way can have a say in the candidate they want representing them? Seems a bit hypocritical to me, like you want others to budge but you're unwilling to budge yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:53 PM

48. What's to compromise?

 

Want to shape a political party? Then join in and get to work. Nothing worse than people who do nothing to help the party, then stand by and criticize it. You don't even strike me as a democrat. I realize I am new here, but it get the feeling you would be more at home somewhere else, like jpr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:10 PM

53. I am a proud Warren wing Democrat, not a Clinton corporatist Democrat.

I was doing plenty to help change the party during the primary by canvassing, phonebanking, driving people to the polls. Then when Clinton was our nominee I put on my big girl pants and supported her. I also lend my time to traditionally Democratic causes- donating supplies to Standing Rock, protesting against natural gas in my state. Simply signing up to this website, as a millennial mind you, shows I want to be part of the process (just as everyone here does). To the main point though, why do some feel the need to call into question someone's party credentials as if to make them show identification if they dare question the way the party does business and the direction it is going in? I love the Democratic party enough to criticize it and push it forward because I want it to succeed- just like Americans can criticize what our country is doing without being deemed "unpatriotic." We can love something enough to demand the best from it. People who are complacent, push people away, and tear down new and opposing voices are what's wrong with the party and unfortunately, you seem to be contributing to that. If you want people to budge, perhaps lead by example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:41 PM

67. exactly

 

Millenials are going to make our leaders represent us. We don't put tthe democratic sign over oour mouth and nod in acceptance to party leaders. The reason the voters were so lackluster and unmotivated to show up is that kind of attitude and a belief by many that dems don't fight and lie down too often. know thats a novel concept
Hence the past couple months till today. The rethugs would have completely run over the dems and been rewarded by it if roles were reversed but here we are.. The lunacy of the current situations and thelack of genuine anger and demands for answers ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Littlered9560 (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:17 PM

34. Most are party loyalists, not wishy-washy.

See post #29. Most "independents" simply like the term "independent" during these polarized times. And many young people are especially fond of the term, at least until they get into their late 20s.

But, make no mistake, most independents are partisan. In fact, surveys have shown they tend to be even more loyal to a particular party than partisans were a few decades ago.

Crossover voting (i.e., Republicans wanting to cause discord) sucks, but it's a fairly small price to pay for encouraging young people (and other 'independents') to take part in the process.

I think caucuses, which are disenfranchising, are what we really ought to be eliminating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:35 PM

71. actually most Independents I know

Just don't pay enough attention to politics or just don't give a shit enough to affiliate themselves with a party. Turnout in (non presidential) primaries is often pathetic.

And very few people are technically registered as independent, the term is 'no party affiliation' or 'unaffiliated'. If someone does not write a party in or check a box on their voter registration form, it defaults to independent. Other unaffiliated voters (my NY self) became interested in politics after they registered and just were too lazy to update their registration (if there's no competitive primary, there really isn't a point). And partisan registration is not always accurate. THe first time I ever phone banked, I was calling seniors (all registered Democrats) and I had the N word used to describe President Obama. This person was probably a Demosaur who's been GOP for awhile but never changed their registration.

Crossover voting does happen but I don' think it is a big enough problem to change the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:05 AM

94. There've been a number of studies of "independents."

A piece in The Nation offers the following excerpts:

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”



On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”


And part of the rise in non-affiliateds can be attributed to young voters making up such a large bloc at this time in our history. Many will become affiliated by their late 20s.

More articles:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americans-arent-becoming-more-politically-independent-they-just-like-saying-they-are/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/?utm_term=.ec8826153c83

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/10/why-people-call-themselves-independent-even-when-they-arent/?utm_term=.045cfbeb9ce1

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:26 AM

99. It probably depends on the state

I've run voter registration drives in multiple states before and in some states, if you fail to declare your party you're defaulted to independent/unaffiliated. Others have that as a box on their form.

I officially became affiliated at the age of 27, but was a partisan Democrat when I woke up politically at 24. I changed because I moved out of state and became a Democrat in my new state.

I also know quite a few people who are unaffiliated because their voter registration is public record (your affiliation is) and they fear that it has professional consequences. These include journalists and public employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:57 AM

106. Whatever the reason might be for non-affiliation, the vast majority are partisan.

Many posts on DU suggest many people are under the impression that "independents" are swing voters, but that's rarely the case. And that's my only point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:17 PM

54. Hillary won 13 open primaries, sanders won 10

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:57 PM

25. I disagree. All candidates campaign to get as many voters from the opposite party to support

THEM! Do you really want to give up many of the millenials who voted for Bernie & a number of women who voted for Hillary because she was aa woman & because the Con was a womanizer?

I've never found a Pub candidate that I liked, but I still want the option to cast a primary vote for a Pub candidate if I find one I preferred over the Dem who was running in the Dem Primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 03:58 PM

26. I'm all in on closed primaries.

 

And to those who will say something about the public carrying the burden of a closed system. I will say this's. As a poll judge, I learned we had to spend a lot of money to include the Green Party on our primary ballot. Guess how many were requested? None, zero, zilch, nada. So the good people of our area paid for the Green Party for no reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:00 PM

27. I would not support the California Democratic Party excluding decline to state registrants.

I think that allowing them to participate provides an excellent opportunity to outreach. Also, generally speaking, what is it that establishes someone as a "Democrat." I think that in some states there isn't even any partisan registration. I would support eliminating partisan registration in California if it were brought to a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:08 PM

152. Aren't California's primaries top two?

(In downticket races) how exactly does that work? I know their Senate race this year was two Democrats, but are unaffiliateds allowed to vote in the top two primary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #152)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:01 PM

161. Other than for the presidential primary, yes.

The presidency is the only case in which there is a partisan primary. I believe that in the presidential primary, decline to state voters may vote in the Democratic primary and may not vote in the Republican primary.

For all other offices, any voter may vote for any primary candidate. It isn't a partisan primary for those offices; rather, it serves the purpose of identifying the top two candidates that will face off in the general election. In one case, there were actually three general election candidates (for assembly I think), because two candidates exactly tied for second place!

With this system, there were a number of instances of two Democrats or two Republicans facing off in the general election. I could foresee that a Democratic district could have the top two positions going to two Republicans, if the Democratic field was very segmented. I could also see the opposite happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:11 PM

29. The vast majority of "independents" are partisans who just like the term "independent."

The commonly held belief that "independents" are moderates or swing voters is false. Young people (who happen to make up a huge bloc at this time) are especially fond of the term "independent" (at least until they get into their late 20s when many register with a particular party). I don't want to discourage them from voting.

Crossover voting is somewhat of a concern, and I suspect it played a significant role in the Michigan Democratic Primary. I don't want Republicans trying to cause discord. But I also don't think crossover voting is nearly substantial enough to impact who becomes the nominee.

Now caucuses are something I'd get rid of in a heartbeat. They're disenfranchising, which is not something the Democratic Party should stand for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:12 PM

31. Anyone can declare as a Democrat or Republican for a primary run.

So who defines what it is to be a Democrat?

Is Joe Manchin a Democrat? His positions are far to the right of Bernie Sanders and most Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 04:02 PM

159. Joe Manchin likely defines the conservative limit across the Democratic spectrum. But since

he resigned and went back to being an independent, Bernie Sanders is officially not a Democrat.

If the general election Democratic vote encompassed everyone on the spectrum from Manchin but stopped short of Sanders, Clinton loses. If it encompassed Democratic voters from Manchin through Sanders, Clinton would have won the Electoral Vote. The challenge is to find the spot where you keep enough of the both ends of the spectrum and when your positions move to cut too much off either end, you lose too many voters in the states that really matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #159)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 04:08 PM

160. A nice definition of the problem.

Also, it is necessary to convince voters that you can help them. And this is not to say that Clinton failed at that. Her plans were detailed and fairly progressive, but she was also the victim of massive negative framing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:14 PM

32. Yes, completely agree. Closed primaries 100%. No open primaries, no undemocratic caucuses.

No more spoiler shenanigans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:31 PM

40. If this is about the primaries...Bernie would have run a strong race anyway.

 

There was and is huge support for what Bernie advocates WITHIN the party. And the overwhelming majority of independents who voted Bernie would simply have re-registered and participated in caucuses and primaries anyway, so the results would have been much the same.

Bernie's candidacy had nothing to do with Trump taking the EC. The voters felt exactly the same way about HRC before and after Bernie's entrance into the race.

There were some bad people who identified as Sanders supporters(as there some bad people who claimed to be HRC supporters)but the vast majority of the supporters of BOTH candidates were and are good people who simply want to work for a better world.

HRC would not have done better in the fall if her campaign and fall platform had had NO Sanders influence to them, if she had run on the same platform as 2008. There was no large group of votes to be won by pretending Occupy and the anti-austerity movement hadn't happen or by being totally just fine with total corporate dominance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:41 PM

44. The open vs. closed thing isn't what made it somewhat close.

Let's remember, it was Clinton who won a majority of the open primaries.

But if there hadn't been caucuses, it wouldn't have been even remotely close. Look no further than the difference between the WA caucus and the WA primary.

As is, the race was effectively decided by mid-March.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:19 PM

55. People had to have a chance to vote for what they wanted.

 

We'd have been worse off if HRC had had 95% of the delagates and the convention was as bland as the ones in 2000 and 2004.

And there's no historical support for the assertion that we do better when our nominee clinches the nomination early.

We've often done far better when the nomination was decided late in the game, in fact

in 1932, it took FDR 4 ballots to get over the top:

in 1948, the Southern delegations walked out to support Strom Thurmond before Harry Truman was nominated;

in 1960, JFK just barely won on the first ballot(he didn't secure his majority until Wyoming voted.

in 2008, Hillary didn't concede until June(and was at nearly a dead heat in the pledged delegate count at the time, with a small popular vote lead due to her insistence on actively campaigning in Michigan and Florida despite the fact that the party had asked all presidential candidates to boycott those states because they had violated party rules by holding their primaries BEFORE New Hampshire);

By contrast:

We lost badly in 1984 even though Mondale, the candidate of the "pros", wrapped up the nomination as early as humanly possible;

We lost in the EC in 2000 even though Gore essentially had it wrapped up in February;

We lost outright in 2004 even though Kerry clinched the nomination by the beginning of April;

So it's not as simple as saying "we'd have beaten Trump if ONLY Hillary had been acccepted by all as nominee after Super Tuesday and if only there was nothing in the platform that reflected the Sanders campaign".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:29 PM

58. I didn't write anything that suggests otherwise.

That said, I think the message that "both parties are the same" was damaging.

Regardless, we shouldn't create an artificially close race just for the sake of having a close contest. Caucuses are disenfranchising and should be done away with, even if that means Sanders wouldn't have won nearly as many delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:54 PM

68. Bernie never said "both parties are the same" and he's not responsible for those who did.

 

It's my conviction that a lot of people POSED as Sanders supporters just to post divisive shit(some may have posed as HRC supporters for the same purpose).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:42 AM

92. I didn't say he did, but it's the message many spread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:39 PM

72. WA is a state with no partisan registration

(I worked in WA this cycle and had access to VAN data)

Primaries are top two and in many districts the general election is two Democrats or two Republicans. The only partisan voter activity recorded in VAN was the 08 and 16 presidential caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:09 AM

95. My point is how much both turnout and the results differ between primaries and caucuses.

Caucuses are not accessible for many people. Many persons with jobs, kids or disabilities (or people who simply want their vote to be kept private) are disinclined to participate in caucuses.

Caucuses are also the only reason Sanders made the race even remotely competitive, though the race was still essentially over by mid-March.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:36 PM

41. I agree 100%.

Any DNC Chair who argues for open primaries is not a Dem. I would hope that whoever is selected as DNC Chair will do the job full-time and will work - beginning now - to rebuild all the state networks so that we truly have a 50-state system. We have NOT had one since the departure of Howard Dean as DNC Chair in 2009 and the results for Dems since then for Congressional, Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections have been disastrous. F**k Rahm Emanuel! Howard Dean had to fight him tooth and nail to use the strategy.

Also -

1. No candidates should be allowed run as Dems in Presidential primaries without having been members of the Dem Party for at least one Presidential cycle (four years).

2. All caucuses should be abolished and replaced with primaries.

3. All primaries should be open to registered Democrats only. It is easy enough to register as a Dem in time to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:27 PM

65. I'll give you

 

Caucuses being trashed if you give me no more National Democratic Party tipping the scales for one candidate over another.
Otherwise, no thanks. I'll stick with the educated and passionate voter in the caucuses. More trust they are better prepared to vote for the better candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthaddict247 (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:49 PM

77. There was NO tipping of the scale

by the DNC. Get, Over. That. Please.

There was one primary candidate - who never was a Democrat before and who spent a LOT of time both before 2016 and during his primary campaign trashing Dems - and then wanted the DNC rules that have been in place for every election since at least 1980 waived for him and him alone.

That person is NOT a Democrat now. Sheesh!

As for caucuses, do you not understand how UNDEMOCRATIC THEY ARE for people who actually have lives to live and who cannot be at a certain place on a certain date for an unlimited number of hours? Yet, you appear to consider yourself an educated and passionate voter. So do you consider those of us who vote in and prefer primaries to be chopped liver?

Enjoy your purity and smugness! I hope that you are among the fortunate well-off percentage of the US population because your purity and smugness may not serve you well otherwise.

And you do not sound like a Democrat to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:52 PM

85. There absolutely was a tipping of the scale by the DNC.

The emails proved that. Did you miss the fact that the head of the DNC was forced to resign because of her blatant bias?

I agree that caucuses are a bad idea, but what about the states that have them and like them? We can't force them to adopt a primary system instead.

As for the issue of closed versus open primaries; it seems to me that that is not what we should be discussing now. What we need to discuss first of all is what does the Democratic party stand for and who does it represent and second, can we create a primary schedule that is balanced between different parts of the country?

The number of people who are registered as Democrats has been declining for some time. Does it not occur to people that that is a problem that the party needs to address if it wishes to win? Dissing independents is not the answer. Finding out what they want would be a good step towards bringing them into the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to potone (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:14 PM

124. That is total and absolute

BS about the DNC tipping the scale. The emails "proved" nothing other than some staffers speculating about things - not what actually happened.

True, it is up to the state authorities to decide whether there will be caucuses or primaries. But caucuses have generally been superseded by just about everything in contemporary life and states should be encouraged to revisit them.

It is very clear what the Democratic Party stands for. It stands for civil rights and liberties for ALL US citizens, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion (or not), national origin, etc. The Republican party stands for the wealthy and large corporations (mom-and-pop businesses, not so much). That is the shorthand version. But it is the most important.

If you haven't yet figured that out, then you have a LONG way to go before you will be knowledgeable about US politics or political parties.

Frankly, as someone who has the great good fortune to reside part-time in a very blue area of a very blue state (MD) and specifically chose to live in that area BECAUSE the community values diversity and also to reside most of the time in the Greater Geneva region of Switzerland where there is international diversity on a scale rarely found in the rest of the world, I am getting sick and tired of while males/females whining about how THEY are somehow being left behind by the Democratic Party.

Those who have never joined and who expect Dems to "woo" them other than by the very ideals we practice/stand for will be waiting a LONG time. Hillary reached her heart out and those pissant while males/females who "want to be wooed" voted for Trump and did so to spite her. F**k every single one of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:00 PM

69. I think that getting rid of Super Delegates is a great idea

 

I however somewhat disagree with blocking the independents because there are a lot of Democrats, who are registered independent who would not be able to participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamH1474 (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:41 PM

73. If people can't choose a side, then

screw them! The choice between the parties is pretty stark and it was especially clear for this election where one candidate was exceptionally qualified and universally respected around the world, if not appreciated by too many in her own country, while the other was neither. If people STILL can't see that, then it will literally take an Armageddon for them to. Too many people in key states chose to go with the person who preached bigotry, racism, misogyny and xenophobia - all because they wanted people to think that they were "Independent" and Hillary still only lost by about 80,000 votes in three of those states! But the Dem (and US) majority - by nearly three million votes - saw through the con man.

It is very easy to register as a Dem to vote and then change back if it's that important to someone. But the voting in Dem primaries should be limited to Dems. Otherwise, why even bother to have primaries? Just go straight to the general and save a lot of time and money. Do as the French do. If one candidate does not get 51% in the first round; then limit a second round to the top two so that one of the candidates WILL get 51%.

Too many people seem just to have woken up to what our political system is for the 2016 election and too many of them - especially whites (of which I am one) - have come to the wrong conclusions, based on what too many are still saying.

But I do agree that our system is a mess. Personally, having studied and taught complementary political systems, I much prefer a parliamentary system to the botched-up and complex two-party mess that was foisted upon us by the Founding Fathers who wanted to ensure that the elites stayed in control. If anyone has any doubt that the elites will be in control for the foreseeable future, you are woefully mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:40 PM

43. What do you do in the case of state's where you do not register by party - like VT?

Many of us are live long Democrats. Every primary, I can take a Democratic, Republican or Progresive primary ballot. That is state law.

Not to mention, this would mean that a large percent of people in states like MA - about as blue as it gets - will not be able to vote including many young people, who are more likely to register as unafilliated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 04:53 PM

47. Allowing only democrats to choose nominee might be problematic.

A lot of people don't register by party.
Getting rid of caucuses should be easy enough, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:02 PM

51. Do you have a link for your allegation about a difference between the parties?

 

You write:

Republicans rarely allow open primaries, yet Democrats use them in several states.


A general rule is that primaries are paid for and run by the state. The state government sets the rules, which are the same for both major parties. Caucuses are paid for and run by the parties.

It's conceivable to me that caucuses might have been run differently in some states. I don't remember hearing of any primaries where the rules were different. It could happen if the two state party organizations had different preferences and the state legislature obligingly accommodated both of them in writing the law. If that happened at all, however, it was the exception rather than the rule. I'd be interested in reading about the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 12:27 PM

171. In Texas, I can vote in any primary

I often toy with voting for the least conservative of the Rs which have a stranglehold in this state. We've got some real nuts on the R side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:20 PM

56. Agree...

...and Bernie Sanders should have remained a Democrat. Sorry to see him go... but welcome his independent support. Looking to other Democrats for the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:26 PM

57. It wasn't lost

We got a candidate who was fine as these things go and we won. Don't lose sight of that. Democracy did not fail us. It was stolen. Could we tweek it, yes, but we did win with this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 05:50 PM

59. I agree so very much

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:03 PM

61. Maybe only Democrats can vote for them in the general election, too?

That will turn out real well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:09 PM

62. Completely agree

Open primaries are an invitation to the fox, swinging the door to the hen house wide open. I don't want [strike]fake Democrats[/strike] Republicans having a say in the selection of the Democratic nominee.

It's fine to be an Independent; have at it. You can vote for anyone on the ballot in the GE. Just like you can sit in the stands at a baseball game but you can't choose the lineup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 06:33 PM

66. And then Hillary would have won the primary just like she did.

 

..and magically, somehow things would have turned out differently? Everyone would have loved her, she would have been totally trusted by everyone, Comey wouldn't have been the FBI director, Trump wouldn't have been the Republican candidate and we all would have gotten candy canes and lollipops.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:14 PM

70. The caucus process picked electors, not just delegates? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LLStarks (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:41 PM

74. Typically, the caucus picks delegates for the state party convention

where they pick electors (and delegates to the national convention). Varies state by state, but the caucus vs. primary battle also affects the make up of the state party. Would probably be best and more representative of Dems in the state if it were determined by a mechanism that encourages higher turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:43 PM

75. They had downballot primary with a non-binding presidential preference poll. Just use that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LLStarks (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 07:48 PM

76. They definitely should, but...

Idk if the current Washington Democratic Party will switch to using that without a battle with the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:10 PM

82. We should let only Democrats BE our nominees

If you want to be a Democratic candidate, you should have to be a registered Democrat. Enuf said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:16 PM

87. In some states, there's no such thing

19 states have no partisan voter registration.

Primaries are run (and paid for) by the state, not the parties.

Caucuses are run by the parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:38 AM

101. I didn't know that

I live in PA, a closed primary state. I was referring to independents running as Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 08:45 AM

102. 19 states do not have party registration

This includes key swing states like Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:22 AM

105. That also includes Texas

I used to live in Texas, but I never voted in primary elections there; only in general elections, and you guess how I used to vote. Hint: I lost practically every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:09 PM

109. But once you vote in a primary, then you are locked into that party for the rest of the cycle

Texas also got rid of the Texas Two Step and so that all delegates were selected by the primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 08:36 PM

83. And the states that don't require party affiliation in their voter registration?

I guess they shouldn't be allowed to have primaries at all.

And I'm not sure why you're so worked up about this. Need I remind you that Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Party nomination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2016, 09:52 PM

90. Damn Straight.. it's our party!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:09 AM

103. I completely agree. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:06 PM

107. I want to get rid of caucuses and open primaries

I agree that Democrats should vote on our nominee. Many of Sanders' "victories" were in caucus states. Caucuses are very undemocratic and should be abolished

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:17 PM

110. Independents now make up 40%+ of the electorate

Locking their voices out diminishes our ability to win them in the GE.

I want to win so I say let them help us choose a winner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arazi (Reply #110)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:36 PM

114. The vast majority of whom are partisans who just like the term "independent."

Or live in places where one doesn't register with a particular party.

Very few are actually swing voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:25 PM

112. Good luck coming up with all that money to fund private elections.

Actually, Wall Street would love to continue to flood both parties with money. Brilliant strategy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:44 PM

115. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:49 PM

116. Utterly and completely the wrong thing to do.

 

A primary has nothing to do with picking a candidate that makes the hardcore base happy, it's about picking a candidate that can go out into the general and pull in enough voters to win. The scaremongering about Republicans trying to land us with a bad candidate by voting in the Dem primary is bullshit frankly, there will never be enough numbers of them for that to work.

Open primaries let us see how popular a candidate is across the country with a much broader base of voters. That's the kind of information that will win us elections, and I cant think of a single decent and reasonable reason not to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #116)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:52 PM

117. If you don't have the support of the base, you aren't going to win in the general election.

Far too many make the mistake of misunderstanding who "independents" are. The vast majority of them are partisans who just like the term "independent" or "non-affiliated."

I don't think crossover voting is enough of a concern to make every primary a closed primary, but in a really tight race, crossover voting could be the difference between winning and losing. That's where the importance of proportional allocation of delegates comes into play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:58 PM

120. If you don't win over enough of the base you won't win the primary anyway

 

We're not talking about huge enough numbers to land us with someone the base can't stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:00 PM

121. Agreed.

Make every primary open or semi-open. Do away with caucuses. In that scenario, Sanders wouldn't have come even remotely close to being nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #121)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:30 PM

131. You notice the way I was talking about the future there, and you keep bringing up Sanders

 

Despite knowing I'm a supporter of his? Yeah, that..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:23 PM

144. We're in agreement.

I only mentioned Sanders because there's this persistent narrative that Sanders would have been the nominee if all primaries were open or semi-open.

Anyway, do away with caucuses and make every primary open or semi-open. Make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #117)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:04 PM

135. This year's Democratic candidate did have the support of the base

By a large margin (some 3 million primary voters, representing a 12% win). They were the base of the Democratic Party.

Who do you think the "base" is? The voters whose candidate lost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #135)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:20 PM

143. We're in agreement. That was my point.

Sanders didn't have the support of the base. Clinton did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:21 PM

125. The problem is that several states have an open primary by law. Yes we should only let Democrats

choose, but to change that would in some cases require changing a state law in states controlled by Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #125)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:56 PM

142. States cannot force political parties...

... to let non-Party members vote for the party's nominee. That would violate freedom of association. A state can freely allow people to change their party affiliation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #142)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:01 PM

150. And in the 19 states with no party affiliation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #150)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:21 PM

155. California Dem Party vs Jones. 530 US 567

Ask a lawyer. Just know that the US Supreme Court invalidated California's blanket primary law where everyone can vote in a primary with the Party candidates with the most votes become that party's Nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:41 PM

127. yes because Democrats did such a good job picking a winner last time......

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:38 PM

132. Sort of Like DNC Platform Member Cornell West...

...endorsing Jill Stein? The experiment of letting folks outside of the Party have such a large say in our platform failed.

The lock her up chants at the DNC were shameful and voting for Colin Powell in the electoral college?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:20 PM

130. So....I'm confused...

 

Would Hillary not have been our nominee if we had a closed primary? I'm pretty sure she would have, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #130)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 04:42 PM

133. Get rid of superdelegates, too...

What I found offensive in California was catering to non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary to overcome Hillary's edge amount Democrats.

I think it is great to expand Democratic Party membership, but if they refuse to join the party why do they get to choose our party's nominee?

In California, only registered Republicans can vote in CA's GOP primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #133)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:05 PM

136. That didn't answer my question....

 

If we had closed primaries, wouldn't Hillary have been our nominee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:10 PM

137. I am not trying to favor any candidate. In 2008...

...Hillary lost to Obama, so I don't see anything structurally that necessarily helps Hillary. Indeed, the use of proportional distribution of delegates arguably hurt her, but I have no problem with that. Pick another, Hillary is old news now. Make the changes for the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #137)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:14 PM

138. I still don't see how it helps us in the future.

 

Get rid of caucuses, I agree with. Get rid of superdelegates I DEFINITELY agree with. But I think open primaries help us more than they hurt us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 06:53 PM

141. I See Party Primaries as Our Party Selecting Our Candidate...

...for the general election. If someone wants to participate in that process, then they are free to register as a Democrat. But, if they don't want to be a Democrat, then why should they get a say in our parties' nominee?

A undeclared voter can, of course vote in the general election for either a Republican or Democrat. We should try to expand our party's membership, rather than making party membership optional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:03 PM

134. Caucus

I attended my first caucus this year and based on my experience I think they should not be used to select a candidate and using a primary is a fairer way to select a candidate. The first caucus was small, about 40 people from about 8 precincts. The first caucus took roughly one hour from start to finish. A few weeks later I went to the county caucus which started at 1 pm. Now if you want to turn people off to politics have them attend a large caucus and sit for hours waiting for the counts to be completed. I left at 6:30 and the caucus still hadn’t been completed and well over half of the people had left. I heard that other caucuses in the state ran far later than the one I attended. Bottom line to me is that you should use the caucus to select delegates to go to the next level and use a primary to pick your state’s preference for the party’s choice for President. Also in a primary you can mail in ballots or vote in person but you don’t spend hours waiting and it is more inclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlin Vet (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 02:18 AM

164. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #164)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:02 AM

167. Thank You

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 08:50 AM

145. Yes, yes, yes. I was assailed back in the spring for mentioning that.

And I agree with getting rid of most, if not all caucuses. The ultimate "winner" is the one who has a few very outspoken bullies at the caucuses. That's not the way to choose a nominee.

On the other hand, my feeling is that we should only allow Democrats to be candidates for the Democratic nomination, too. If someone wants to be our nominee the least he/she can do is work within the party, not spend decades bashing it from the outside, and then after the nominee is chosen and the election is held should remain a member of the party.

Running for President isn't a whimsical thing - one doesn't decide to do so for a particular party and then join that party the day before announcing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:02 PM

151. I agree! Time to end caucuses and open primaries.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:28 PM

156. Even in a state without an open primary, a person can often change party affiliation

right before the vote and drop it right after the vote. More and more Democrats are registering as Independents so disenfranchising them completely only accomplishes one thing: they become even more alienated from the party they usually vote for than they were before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 03:45 PM

158. First Past The Post (FPTP) Voting

reliably produces a two party state and relegates others to the fringes. That's the current situation, two parties that can possibly win and a handful of fringe parties. This is an ugly system. Two over inflated parties with no real core (like how the hell is Kim Davis a Democrat?) trying to build a coalition that's broadly appealing enough to get a majority of votes, and a bunch of "independents" who resent having to choose between bland platforms that don't inspire. If you want to close the primaries, great! That's going to be much better for the party and give voters a clearer sense of what the party stands for. But that won't produce a broadly appealing platform. So to correct the FPTP 2 Party dominance put Instant Runoff in place. That will foster more boutique parties without letting those parties act as spoilers. But if we don't have Instant Runoff then open primaries are the only other tool to temper the resentment people feel about having to pick from one of two choices they had no say in nominating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gklagan (Reply #158)

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:12 PM

162. I'll say it again, the vast majority of "independents" are strongly partisan.

They aren't people opposed to the platforms of both parties. They are, for the most part, people who subscribe to the platform of one of the 2 major parties.

But I don't have any problem with open or semi-open primaries. I just want caucuses to be done away with. Young people are especially inclined to be non-affiliated (it's viewed as more socially acceptable and people like to think of themselves as "independent", and I don't want to prevent them from taking part in the primary process. Plus, in some places one has no choice but to be non-affiliated.

So, make every primary open or semi-open and get rid of caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 07:23 AM

166. I completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 08:44 AM

168. I have no problem with that, but lets overhaul the whole damn thing, including the calendar.

Get rid of caucuses and superdelegates, absolutely. Every state a straight vote, majority wins.

But also, it's bullshit that the same states swing an outsized influence every 4 years by going first. Rotate the states or set the schedule randomly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:53 AM

170. I agree

The concept of letting non-members make decisions that affect other members of an organization makes little or no sense to me when you're trying to choose somebody to lead said organization. If you want to participate in a party's nomination process, you should be (or become) a member of it IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 12:48 PM

172. I'd be fine with this if there was some way to allow the 40-some % of Indys

nominate someone of their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread