Primary Elections

[Machaut]

In some states, one must be a registered member of a party to vote in that party's primary elections.

In others, one must be registered as either a member of that party or as a independent/unaffiliated/etc. to vote in that party's primary.

In still others, anyone can vote in any primary they choose, regardless of their registered affiliation.

Which of these, if any, is desirable?

The Cochran race illustrates what I view as a weakness of the system in his state; Cochran was not running for a Senate seat, but rather for the Republican nomination for the seat. He avoided losing the primary due to technical rules, despite another candidate winning the plurality of the votes, and won in the second round due to--as USMB has discussed to death--the "black Democrat" vote. As a result, Democrats have once again chosen their opponent in the general election, this time more directly than they did in the 2012 presidential race.

Some candidates will exploit a weakness in registration deadlines to prop themselves up. One incumbent, for example, switched his registration from Democrat to Republican because he had a Republican challenger in this year's election. However, leading up to the primary, he issued an appeal to his Democratic base, urging them to switch their registration temporarily to vote for him in the primary, and telling them that they could re-join the Democratic Party immediately after casting their ballot.

Is such behavior ethical? I have seen it argued on this board that Cochran used a brilliant strategy, but does such an endorsement of his campaign's tactics not merely erode the representative nature of our government? Appealing to "the other side" (from Cochran's perspective as a Republican relying on Democratic voters) is a legitimate tactic in a general election, but to openly attempt to get voters of one party to influence the primary election of another party seems underhanded and dishonest to me.

What do you all think about the primary system in general? Do the laws need to change in your state?

 

[Nyvin]

Some would say open primaries has two (most visible) benefits:

1. Increase voter turnout

2. Having a candidate that appeals to a broader audience (not the extremist)

The negative effects of an open primary are that you take away the voice of those most conservative or most liberal to select the candidate that most represents them, but in my humble opinion there is enough extremism going on in congress already.

The primary argument in favor of them is that political parties are not mentioned in the constitution, thus it is left to the states to decide how to handle them. The main argument against them is they (in theory) remove the purpose of a political party altogether.

 

[LiberalMedia]

In some states, one must be a registered member of a party to vote in that party's primary elections.

In others, one must be registered as either a member of that party or as a independent/unaffiliated/etc. to vote in that party's primary.

In still others, anyone can vote in any primary they choose, regardless of their registered affiliation.

Which of these, if any, is desirable?

The third. Anyone should be able to vote in any primary. It would be completely discriminatory to not allow someone to vote in a Republican primary just because they're not a Republican and will never vote for any Republican candidate outside of that primary.

What do you all think about the primary system in general? Do the laws need to change in your state?

Three things need to happen to strengthen voting rights and restore confidence in the electoral system.

1. Ban all forms of paid campaign advertising, holding government-sponsored town halls, public forums, and televised debates that include all candidates of all affiliations in their place, and making all candidates for all offices write-ins.

2. Do away with primaries completely, holding an instant-runoff election in November with as many tiers as there are candidates of any party. People can vote in as many tiers as they feel like.

3. Abolish the electoral college and all voter ID laws, instituting a Constitutional amendment to prevent the passage of any subsequent voter ID laws ever again.

Doing these things will make America a better country, hands down, and increase voter turnout to nearly 100% in all elections--federal, state, and local. Wrongpublicans don't want this to happen because they know they'd lose almost every office they currently own, having bought them all.

 

[whitehall]

Primary elections used to be shoe-ins for incumbents until the Tea Party rolled into town. While pot head libertarians whine about the system and discourage voter turnout and low information democrats still ain't got a clue, the Tea Party made primary elections popular again. How could you not like it? You can bet your ass(ets) that every republican incumbent is looking over his shoulder and listening to his constituents since the Tea Party showed the arrogant house majority leader that he better pay attention.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Primary elections used to be shoe-ins for incumbents until the Tea Party rolled into town. While pot head libertarians whine about the system and discourage voter turnout and low information democrats still ain't got a clue, the Tea Party made primary elections popular again. How could you not like it? You can bet your ass(ets) that every republican incumbent is looking over his shoulder and listening to his constituents since the Tea Party showed the arrogant house majority leader that he better pay attention.

For a second there, I thought you were actually attempting to answer one of OP's questions. Silly me.

On another note, boo hoo, one guy lost. So what? What about all the other Tea Partiers that got beat down--that Bevin guy going after McConnell, I believe, and Greg Brannon in North Carolina? Brannon was endorsed by Erick Erickson, Rand Paul, and a slew of other libertardian Teabagger types--doesn't that mean that the Tea Party has almost completely faded into irrelevancy?

Or is Cantor's "1 of 435" House of Representatives seat of such vital importance that it completely overrides every Tea Party loss ever?

 

[Mr. H.]

Illinois has open primaries, and we still have shitty turnouts.

 

[Shanty]

In some states, one must be a registered member of a party to vote in that party's primary elections.

In others, one must be registered as either a member of that party or as a independent/unaffiliated/etc. to vote in that party's primary.

In still others, anyone can vote in any primary they choose, regardless of their registered affiliation.

Which of these, if any, is desirable?

The Cochran race illustrates what I view as a weakness of the system in his state; Cochran was not running for a Senate seat, but rather for the Republican nomination for the seat. He avoided losing the primary due to technical rules, despite another candidate winning the plurality of the votes, and won in the second round due to--as USMB has discussed to death--the "black Democrat" vote. As a result, Democrats have once again chosen their opponent in the general election, this time more directly than they did in the 2012 presidential race.

Some candidates will exploit a weakness in registration deadlines to prop themselves up. One incumbent, for example, switched his registration from Democrat to Republican because he had a Republican challenger in this year's election. However, leading up to the primary, he issued an appeal to his Democratic base, urging them to switch their registration temporarily to vote for him in the primary, and telling them that they could re-join the Democratic Party immediately after casting their ballot.

Is such behavior ethical? I have seen it argued on this board that Cochran used a brilliant strategy, but does such an endorsement of his campaign's tactics not merely erode the representative nature of our government? Appealing to "the other side" (from Cochran's perspective as a Republican relying on Democratic voters) is a legitimate tactic in a general election, but to openly attempt to get voters of one party to influence the primary election of another party seems underhanded and dishonest to me.

What do you all think about the primary system in general? Do the laws need to change in your state?

You play by the rules you have, not the rules you want.

That said, I'm in favor of a closed primary system, as my state has. If the dependents, like non-party aligned and third party aligned voters, want to pick a candidate, they can do so by either getting their people onto a ballot, or by some sort of convention system. But, I like the closed primary, where only Democrats can choose Democratic nominees, and Republicans can choose their own nominees. It works well. While I'm a liberal, I disagree strongly with [MENTION=49168]LiberalMedia[/MENTION]'s approach, as parties will always have the most say in how governance happens. It's human nature, and fighting against it sees reality smacking down those who fight against human nature.

 

[Politico]

All open primaries do is make it possible for poison pill voters to mess up the process.

 

[JoeB131]

Illinois has open primaries, and we still have shitty turnouts.

That's because we have shitty candidates.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the underlying problem is that closed primaries, or for that matter, primaries where only the party faithful vote, usually ends up in extreme candidates.

Clearly, the GOP should have taken control of the Senate in 2012. They were looking at a bunch of vacancies, there were a lot of races in Red states that Obama wasn't even going to bother with.

And they STILL managed to lose in IN, MO, SD, NE and give the democrats 2 pickups.

This year, the GOP is trying to manage the process by avoiding extreme candidates and keeping them from winning, even in safe districts.

 

[bendog]

I like open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate because it gives individual voters the biggest voice possible. For example, in Miss we have statutorily mandated black maj districts. For better or worse, that means that a black democrat is always going to win. However, because republicans can vote in a primary, it gives them some voice if there are two democrat candidates. That's merely an example. I have no issue with anyone's race rel or orientation. And, I'm sure there are other places in America where the reality is that elections are a one party horse race.

 

[Shanty]

I think the underlying problem is that closed primaries, or for that matter, primaries where only the party faithful vote, usually ends up in extreme candidates.

Clearly, the GOP should have taken control of the Senate in 2012. They were looking at a bunch of vacancies, there were a lot of races in Red states that Obama wasn't even going to bother with.

And they STILL managed to lose in IN, MO, SD, NE and give the democrats 2 pickups.

This year, the GOP is trying to manage the process by avoiding extreme candidates and keeping them from winning, even in safe districts.

Most of the Democratic candidates end up being centrists, and quite the opposite of extreme. The TeaBaggeds have certainly been extreme, and the GOP is in a constant game of one upmanship over who is crazier than the other. But the Democrats often will display their own conservative credentials in primaries.

 

[Picaro]

Party primaries should reflect the voting of their core voters, and nobody should be allowed to vote in more than one primary. The voters that turn out for primary votes are the more important to the Party and those that can't be bothered with things like primaries and mid-terms and the like don't get to snivel about it.

Higher turnouts just mean more dumbasses voting. If elections are that serious then literacy tests and civics tests should be required for obtain a voter registration card.

 

[JoeB131]

Party primaries should reflect the voting of their core voters, and nobody should be allowed to vote in more than one primary. The voters that turn out for primary votes are the more important to the Party and those that can't be bothered with things like primaries and mid-terms and the like don't get to snivel about it.

Higher turnouts just mean more dumbasses voting. If elections are that serious then literacy tests and civics tests should be required for obtain a voter registration card.

Right. Because that worked out so well in the past.

Okay, let's be perfectly honest here. There were some pretty serious shennanigans in the MS Runoff. People who voted in the Democratic Primary voted in this one runoff and tipped it to Cochran.

So what?

The GOP is shoving the Tea Party into the closet like a crazy uncle.

 

[Picaro]

Right. Because that worked out so well in the past.

This isn't 1950 any more, it's 2014 and thanks to technology we have much better controls and monitoring over election counts than before, so no reason to pretend otherwise. Besides, better educated voters are more likely to vote for sane candidates and against machine hacks than uneducated voters as well. If somebody can't be bothered to even learn how their local, state, and Federal govts. work and who does what, they shouldn't be voting. It's pretty obvious. It would indeed work out a lot better now than in the past.

Okay, let's be perfectly honest here. There were some pretty serious shennanigans in the MS Runoff. People who voted in the Democratic Primary voted in this one runoff and tipped it to Cochran.

So what?

You tell me. If that's okay with you personally, then it's all good, right? ...

The GOP is shoving the Tea Party into the closet like a crazy uncle.

Good. I'm not a Tea Party muppet, nor do I obsess over them. They're no worse than the corrupt vermin the Democrats love to put in office, in any case. Requiring literacy tests and tests on basic civics would eliminate most of their base as well. It's a win all around, except for Democrat and Republican Party hacks and crooks, of course, since they would both have to up their games and improve their candidate pools.

 

[Picaro]

In some states, one must be a registered member of a party to vote in that party's primary elections.

In others, one must be registered as either a member of that party or as a independent/unaffiliated/etc. to vote in that party's primary.

In still others, anyone can vote in any primary they choose, regardless of their registered affiliation.

Which of these, if any, is desirable?

The Cochran race illustrates what I view as a weakness of the system in his state; Cochran was not running for a Senate seat, but rather for the Republican nomination for the seat. He avoided losing the primary due to technical rules, despite another candidate winning the plurality of the votes, and won in the second round due to--as USMB has discussed to death--the "black Democrat" vote. As a result, Democrats have once again chosen their opponent in the general election, this time more directly than they did in the 2012 presidential race.

Some candidates will exploit a weakness in registration deadlines to prop themselves up. One incumbent, for example, switched his registration from Democrat to Republican because he had a Republican challenger in this year's election. However, leading up to the primary, he issued an appeal to his Democratic base, urging them to switch their registration temporarily to vote for him in the primary, and telling them that they could re-join the Democratic Party immediately after casting their ballot.

Is such behavior ethical? I have seen it argued on this board that Cochran used a brilliant strategy, but does such an endorsement of his campaign's tactics not merely erode the representative nature of our government? Appealing to "the other side" (from Cochran's perspective as a Republican relying on Democratic voters) is a legitimate tactic in a general election, but to openly attempt to get voters of one party to influence the primary election of another party seems underhanded and dishonest to me.

What do you all think about the primary system in general? Do the laws need to change in your state?

The problem is not so much the system as it is the people who manipulate it. Both Parties game the system; they only get all upset when the other Party out games them, that's all. Everybody loves corruption and dishonesty, they just don't like it when somebody else benefits instead of them. Nobody really wants to clean up and reform anything, they just want to stack everything in their own favor and cash in. The public be damned, as somebody once said. It doesn't really matter which of the three is chosen, any 'reforms' will come with numerous loopholes and caveats that make them ineffective; the object of corrupt political parties is to make sure the public has no real say in anything, but making an effort to make them think they do. The MSM media makes hundreds of millions off of election spending, so don't look for those hacks to do anything either, as long as their pet hobbies get a lot of airplay.

 

[Shanty]

Party primaries should reflect the voting of their core voters, and nobody should be allowed to vote in more than one primary. The voters that turn out for primary votes are the more important to the Party and those that can't be bothered with things like primaries and mid-terms and the like don't get to snivel about it.

Higher turnouts just mean more dumbasses voting. If elections are that serious then literacy tests and civics tests should be required for obtain a voter registration card.

Right. Because that worked out so well in the past.

Okay, let's be perfectly honest here. There were some pretty serious shennanigans in the MS Runoff. People who voted in the Democratic Primary voted in this one runoff and tipped it to Cochran.

So what?

The GOP is shoving the Tea Party into the closet like a crazy uncle.

First, who can blame the crazy GOP for shoving the TeaBaggeds into the closet, to hide the absolute worst of the party, who take offices away from the caucus as a whole?

Second, they aren't shenanigans when the rules allow for cross party voting. McDaniels and his people are whining that the rules allowed for it. I'll say it again: you win by working within the rules that are in place, not the rules you want.

That said, I disagree with cross party/open primaries. But, the voters or legislatures put those rules in place.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Cochran race illustrates what I view as a weakness of the system in his state;

Seems like a strength to me. Extremist defeated. Elections shouldn't favor extremists.



It doesn't really matter though. If you have a state with one dominant party, members of the minority party will simply register as members of the majority party so they can get a meaningful vote in the primary. My father-in-law has been a Republican all his life but his party registration is Democrat because back in the day when Louisiana had closed primaries the Republicans had pretty much zero power.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And once again (and not to sound like a broken record, for I've written it a helluva lot): part of the reason why people get frustrated and bitch when things like the race in Mississippi happen is due to:

Federalism


Since there are no specific rules for the nuts-and-bolts of electioneering anchored in the US Constitution, then each state gets to decide how to handle this, and some states even shunt it down to the county level.

It all starts with voter registration, for the method of VR that a state allows will partially determine what kind of primaries are even possible. For instance, in a state like MS, that does not do VR by party affiliation, there is no way in the world to accurately and fairly hold closed primaries.


If you want to see how each state handles VR/VT and elections themselves, this link could be helpful:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Complete Voter Registration Statistics (USA), End of 2013

It's all there, in one linked table.

BTW, an update of that link is coming out this September.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Party primaries should reflect the voting of their core voters, and nobody should be allowed to vote in more than one primary. The voters that turn out for primary votes are the more important to the Party and those that can't be bothered with things like primaries and mid-terms and the like don't get to snivel about it.

Higher turnouts just mean more dumbasses voting. If elections are that serious then literacy tests and civics tests should be required for obtain a voter registration card.

Right. Because that worked out so well in the past.

Okay, let's be perfectly honest here. There were some pretty serious shennanigans in the MS Runoff. People who voted in the Democratic Primary voted in this one runoff and tipped it to Cochran.

So what?

The GOP is shoving the Tea Party into the closet like a crazy uncle.

Tell that to Cantor, liar.

You're obviously a diehard Teabagger trying to cover up the not-so-subtle takeover of the Wrongpublican Party by your fellow hillbillies.