Closed Primaries?

[Cecilie1200]

It seems that most of the people attending the Republican Governors Association Conference in November feel that the Republican Party needs to become more conservative in order to win in the future. To that end, many people in the party are looking at the idea of closing Republican primaries to anyone who is not actually registered as a Republican.

Wow, that was complicated. I said that months ago, and didn't even have a high-powered conference to figure it out.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, exit polls prove John McCain failed to win a single race among registered Republican voters in open primaries up to Super Tuesday, yet during that same period he went from also-ran to front runner because most non-Republicans who crossed over voted for him. In New Hampshire, Romney won among registered Republicans, but McCain won overall. Likewise, in South Carolina, Huckabee won among registered Republicans, but McCain won the state.

This, of course, demonstrates that open primaries yield more leftward candidates. And why is it, I keep asking, that the GOP would want Democrats and moderate independents choosing their candidates for them? Democrats, obviously, are going to vote for the Democrat candidate in the general election, and if 2008 is any indication, moderates who voted for the more liberal of the GOP candidates in the primary are ALSO going to vote for the Democrat in the primary. So why listen to them?

Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP and one of the three leading candidates for RNC chairman, says this:

The Republican Party is moving inexorably toward closing rather than opening its presidential primaries, because the party needs to pick its candidates rather than allowing others to do so. As Chairman, he would facilitate and encourage the increasingly closed primary process, which could not be formally adopted as a nationwide mandate until the Republican National Convention in 2012. However, the RNC could indeed pass a Resolution in the meantime encouraging the states to close their primaries in the interim in the run-up to 2012.

Katon Dawson and Michael Steele, two other leading candidates for RNC chairman, also favor the idea.

 

[DiveCon]

It seems that most of the people attending the Republican Governors Association Conference in November feel that the Republican Party needs to become more conservative in order to win in the future. To that end, many people in the party are looking at the idea of closing Republican primaries to anyone who is not actually registered as a Republican.

Wow, that was complicated. I said that months ago, and didn't even have a high-powered conference to figure it out.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, exit polls prove John McCain failed to win a single race among registered Republican voters in open primaries up to Super Tuesday, yet during that same period he went from also-ran to front runner because most non-Republicans who crossed over voted for him. In New Hampshire, Romney won among registered Republicans, but McCain won overall. Likewise, in South Carolina, Huckabee won among registered Republicans, but McCain won the state.

This, of course, demonstrates that open primaries yield more leftward candidates. And why is it, I keep asking, that the GOP would want Democrats and moderate independents choosing their candidates for them? Democrats, obviously, are going to vote for the Democrat candidate in the general election, and if 2008 is any indication, moderates who voted for the more liberal of the GOP candidates in the primary are ALSO going to vote for the Democrat in the primary. So why listen to them?

Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP and one of the three leading candidates for RNC chairman, says this:

The Republican Party is moving inexorably toward closing rather than opening its presidential primaries, because the party needs to pick its candidates rather than allowing others to do so. As Chairman, he would facilitate and encourage the increasingly closed primary process, which could not be formally adopted as a nationwide mandate until the Republican National Convention in 2012. However, the RNC could indeed pass a Resolution in the meantime encouraging the states to close their primaries in the interim in the run-up to 2012.

Katon Dawson and Michael Steele, two other leading candidates for RNC chairman, also favor the idea.

another thing is republicans have to get out their voters in the primaries
something they also failed to do this year

 

[Cecilie1200]

another thing is republicans have to get out their voters in the primaries
something they also failed to do this year

It would help. I think a lot of the GOP's voters weren't exactly enthused about the slate of choices.

They certainly had trouble getting out their voters in the general.

 

[NOBama]

I have to disagree. Closed primaries suck and switching from NPA to a party for the purpose of voting in a primary is an inconvenience that probably deters many people from voting. Another possibility is the semi-closed primary, where you can choose at the poll which party's primary to vote for.

No matter how a primary is structured, Closed, Semi-closed, or Open, it doesn’t prevent the libtards from crossing over to vote for the weakest of opposition candidates, they do it anyway. A closed primary only means that they have to reregister to do it and if their willing to go that far to skew an election and promote their candidate I doubt that reregistering is a big deal for them.

 

[editec]

I have long thought that open primaries are a terrible mistake.

Were I reinventing the political party system, you couldn't vote in a party primary unless you were an ACTIVE member of the party.

Forget JUST being registers as a member of a party to vote in a primary

You'd have to actually have been actively involved in the party to be qualified to select nominants.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have long thought that open primaries are a terrible mistake.

Were I reinventing the political party system, you couldn't vote in a party primary unless you were an ACTIVE member of the party.

Forget JUST being registers as a member of a party to vote in a primary

You'd have to actually have been actively involved in the party to be qualified to select nominants.

How would you define 'active'? Wouldn't any subjective measure be used to exclude? People are active in different ways, some are not documentable.

I would scrap the two-party system... We could have several open votes, starting with internet polls based on resumes posted by interested candidates, moving from all to 50 to 20 to 10. The top 10 could be narrowed to 5 and then to 2 who face off in a general election. The most popular ideas, regardless of party affiliation, would be brought forward for public debate.

The two-party system rarely puts the best candidates on the ballot, and concentrates way too much power into the hands of the party elite and their corporate sponsors.

-Joe

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet your idea retains the two party system very well.

 

[editec]

How would you define 'active'?

Attending meetings of the party. Being involved in same.

Since I stopped being involved in party politics, I do not vote in primaries.

Why?

I do not feel it is my place to decide since I was not involved in the day to day business of party business, that's why.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Attending meetings of the party. Being involved in same.

Since I stopped being involved in party politics, I do not vote in primaries.

Why?

I do not feel it is my place to decide since I was not involved in the day to day business of party business, that's why.

What moronic drivel.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If your to stupid to know who to pick from your own party to RUN for President, why the hell are you voting in the actual election?

 

[editec]

If your to stupid to know who to pick from your own party to RUN for President, why the hell are you voting in the actual election?

Are you just fucking stupid or do you feel like having a pissing match me today, asshole?

I'm not in the mood to pamper your crazy ass broad spectrum idiotic hostility today, jerkoff.


Since I am not actively involved in the day to day activities of the party, it is not MY party.

I left the party over various policy disputes I have with it. FREE TRADE being one of those. Supporting the invasion of Iraq, another.

I do not have a political party which represents my views.

Very few Americans really do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to disagree. Closed primaries suck and switching from NPA to a party for the purpose of voting in a primary is an inconvenience that probably deters many people from voting. Another possibility is the semi-closed primary, where you can choose at the poll which party's primary to vote for.

No matter how a primary is structured, Closed, Semi-closed, or Open, it doesn’t prevent the libtards from crossing over to vote for the weakest of opposition candidates, they do it anyway. A closed primary only means that they have to reregister to do it and if their willing to go that far to skew an election and promote their candidate I doubt that reregistering is a big deal for them.

Actually, it prevents a lot of them from doing it if you require a certain time period of registration before allowing people to vote in your primary. And I'm afraid I'm not understanding why you think the Republican Party owes it to you to allow you to vote in their primary if you are otherwise not interested enough to be a registered Republican.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How would you define 'active'? Wouldn't any subjective measure be used to exclude? People are active in different ways, some are not documentable.

I would scrap the two-party system... We could have several open votes, starting with internet polls based on resumes posted by interested candidates, moving from all to 50 to 20 to 10. The top 10 could be narrowed to 5 and then to 2 who face off in a general election. The most popular ideas, regardless of party affiliation, would be brought forward for public debate.

The two-party system rarely puts the best candidates on the ballot, and concentrates way too much power into the hands of the party elite and their corporate sponsors.

-Joe

Well, the so-called "two party system" isn't mandated anywhere. That simply happens to be how it works out. The people themselves seem to prefer having the process simplified down to just two guys to keep track of. And the number of electoral votes needed to win - because the Founding Fathers wanted it to be a very clear and decisive victory in that regard - can make it a bit difficult to accomplish in a three-man race. It can be done, though, if the people choose to do it.

 

[NOBama]

Actually, it prevents a lot of them from doing it if you require a certain time period of registration before allowing people to vote in your primary. And I'm afraid I'm not understanding why you think the Republican Party owes it to you to allow you to vote in their primary if you are otherwise not interested enough to be a registered Republican.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think I owe the Republican party anything at all. I wasn't born with Republican stamped on my rump. It is my Constitutional Right and Civic Duty to vote, for which party has nothing to do with either. I want the freedom to vote for whomever I think is the best candidate or at least the lesser evil of the available buffoons competing, regardless of party affiliation.

Remember "they" (the parties) are "we" (the people) not the other way around.

 

[Gem]

I am in full support for closed-party voting in the primaries. It makes absolutely no sense to make it easier for people in the opposing party to influence the Republican or the Democratic choice for who will represent them.

If a Republican wants to go to the trouble to change party affiliation to choose a "bad" candidate for the Democrats...then so be it...thats their choice...but I don't see the logic in just letting them do it without having to change parties.

The primaries are, in my opinion...where your party gets to say "This is who we choose represents us...out of all of the men and women with ideas, we like this persons ideas the best."

That person should be chosen by the party members...not people trying to choose a weak candidate so that "their side" can win, or people who have a stake in seeing the party lose.

 

[Shogun]

While I have no problem with closed primaries I think it's a fucking joke to blame this years republican loss on primary voting. You people could have had Romney were it not the fact that your core base was fitfully opposed to his mormon faith. As far as I see it you people made your own bed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think I owe the Republican party anything at all. I wasn't born with Republican stamped on my rump. It is my Constitutional Right and Civic Duty to vote, for which party has nothing to do with either. I want the freedom to vote for whomever I think is the best candidate or at least the lesser evil of the available buffoons competing, regardless of party affiliation.

Remember "they" (the parties) are "we" (the people) not the other way around.

I don't recall saying YOU owed anyone anything. I asked why you think THEY owe it to you to make it easier for you to vote in their primary. If you do not wish to be a registered Republican, then I can't see that you have any business voting in their primary at all. If you have a party with which you are registered, vote in THEIR primary.

It is NOT your Constitutional right to vote in primaries, so get off your high horse. Your Constitutional right to vote concerns general elections.

The parties are NOT "we the people". The parties are "THEY the people", whichever people happen to be members of the party.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think I owe the Republican party anything at all. I wasn't born with Republican stamped on my rump. It is my Constitutional Right and Civic Duty to vote, for which party has nothing to do with either. I want the freedom to vote for whomever I think is the best candidate or at least the lesser evil of the available buffoons competing, regardless of party affiliation.

Remember "they" (the parties) are "we" (the people) not the other way around.

you do NOT have a right to vote in ANY primary
they can be totally limited to party members only
and frankly, you are not aware that you can still vote for whoever you want in the general election, regardless of what party you are a registered member of

 

[glockmail]

Any Party worth its salt would restrict primary voters to registered Party members. Otherwise they risk letting the other Party mess with their election. Its common fucking sense.

 

[NOBama]

you do NOT have a right to vote in ANY primary
they can be totally limited to party members only
and frankly, you are not aware that you can still vote for whoever you want in the general election, regardless of what party you are a registered member of

C'mon, are you serious?