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?
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?