Open Primaries?

[late]

Half of voters are indies, and they get no say in most states as to who the candidates will be that will represent them.

What's more, where Indies can vote, you tend to get more moderate candidates. Living in chaos makes me think that is a very good thing.

Anyway, whaddya think?

 

[j-mac]

Half of voters are indies, and they get no say in most states as to who the candidates will be that will represent them.

What's more, where Indies can vote, you tend to get more moderate candidates. Living in chaos makes me think that is a very good thing.

Anyway, whaddya think?

No. Open primaries allow meddling from opposing party....If there are truly so many so called "Indy's" out there, then they should land on what the core issues are that drive them, and pick a candidate....

Party primaries, should be closed to all but those affiliated with that party.

 

[1srelluc]

There's no party registration in Virginia and look what we ended up with....Plenty of dem Yankee transplants though.

Maybe it would be more effective not to allow transplants to vote for four years.

 

[late]

Maybe it would be more effective not to allow transplants to vote for four years.

There is an itsy bitsy teeny weeny problem with that.

Try guessing what it is.

 

[late]

No. Open primaries allow meddling from opposing party....If there are truly so many so called "Indy's" out there, then they should land on what the core issues are that drive them, and pick a candidate....

Party primaries, should be closed to all but those affiliated with that party.

I never considered open primaries before today.

But, at this moment in time, moderate candidates makes a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[j-mac]

I never considered open primaries before today.

But, at this moment in time, moderate candidates makes a hell of a lot of sense.

When you say "moderates", like who for example? Is Spamberger the moderate she claimed to be?

 

[Cassandro]

Open primaries are fine for nonpartisan elections, as long as they are winnowed down to two final candidates in the general election. In partisan elections, political parties should be allowed to pick their own candidates. Ranked choice voting is a scheme to undercut that process (e.g., Alaska).

 

[kyzr]

Half of voters are indies, and they get no say in most states as to who the candidates will be that will represent them.
What's more, where Indies can vote, you tend to get more moderate candidates. Living in chaos makes me think that is a very good thing.
Anyway, whaddya think?

NO.
I also saw Smerconish on CNN, whining about this.
If indies want to vote in primaries form a new party and put up your own "indie" candidates.

Democrats want their own policies and Republicans want their own policies and candidates.

CA has a "jungle primary" where the top two vote getters face off. That looks bad to me.

 

[Independent thinker]

Half of voters are indies, and they get no say in most states as to who the candidates will be that will represent them.

What's more, where Indies can vote, you tend to get more moderate candidates. Living in chaos makes me think that is a very good thing.

Anyway, whaddya think?

Just another way for democrats to rig elections. Guess this is what Kamala meant when she was asking for ideas.