Thirteen states have closed primary elections: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. A closed primary is where you can only vote for the candidates running on the same party ticket that you are registered as. Fifteen states have semi-closed primary elections: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. A semi-closed primary is where you can vote for the candidates running on the same party ticket if you are registered as, or if you are an unaffiliated. It is also considered semi-closed if you are allowed to change parties up to the day of voting. An Open primary allows voters to vote for every ticket no matter the party affiliation. As I understand it, all of the other 22 states allow voters to cross party lines to vote for candidates of any party. I believe all primary elections should be closed and that a person should declare which party they identify as 2 weeks prior to the elections. The reason I believe this is so that the integrity of our voting system is maintained. Primary elections are not determining which candidate will represent the voters, their purpose is to determine which candidate will represent their party. Closed primaries will prevent underhanded voting practices that are designed to corrupt and sway the outcome of the main elections. They accomplish the following: 1. Prevents voter from one party dictating that a weaker candidate from the other party will run against their candidate in the main elections. 2. Prevent a party from catering to voters of a different party in order to beat a stronger opponent. 3. Insure that the candidate selected by a State's voters to represent a party is the person those party members of the State actually want to represent them. 4. Prevent people from jumping parties in order to corrupt the voting process (no late party changes the day before elections). 5. Provides candidates a clearer picture of what the party members of their State desire. I am only addressing Primary elections. I feel that Main elections should remain open for obvious reasons. If you answer "No", please explain your reasoning. p.s I put this in Current Events instead of Opinions because of the recent elections in MS.
Second attempt to post... the server being busy. NO. Mark the Voter Registration with the party affiliation of a primary vote which would control which party runoff a voter could vote in. If the voter did not vote in a primary he could still vote in either runoff. Any regulation that requires me to declare a party affiliation would prevent me from changing my mind. Why would I declare a party affiliation two weeks prior to a vote? It's no one's damn business how I intend to vote. There is NO party affiliation in voter registration in Texas. At the time of primary voting I will declare to vote in the Dem or Rpub ballot. I get a ballot for that party. My registration is marked Dem or Rpub. I can only vote in a runoff of the same party. It would also prevent me from attending a Libertarian convention. In the general election I can do what I damn well please.
I think primary elections should be open. This allows people to freely vote for a candidate if they choose to and not bind a person to a particular party affiliation. What you are advocating is not the intent of the founding fathers. I am not a member of any party, yet you are forcing me to joining a party during primaries. Why is that?
I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. You voted "No"....does that mean that you feel that a Republican should be able to vote for a candidate running in the Democrat's primary to determine which candidate will represent the Democrat party?
I also am not affiliated with any party. However, I do not feel I should have a say on who the Republicans or the Democrats selected to represent them in the Main elections....just as I feel I should not have a say on who is the CEO of a company I have no direct interest or investment in.
So, are you saying that if I voted between Republican candidates, I should not be able to vote between the Democrat candidates? I might agree with that, but I could still see possibilities of corruption and attempts to influence an election for unethical gains.
Primaries should not be governed or protected by local, state, or federal laws. If a party wants their own bylaws, that is up to them to create and enforce.
Because the Primary elections are not determining who will represent you. Their purpose are to determine who represents their party. p.s. If I remember correctly, there were no primary elections in the days of the 'founding fathers'. Different parties determined internally who would represent them. Iirc, primary elections began in Wisconsin around 1910.
That's why I've never registered in any political party. Life long independent; it's no one's business what my political choices will be. Plus I don't have to worry about getting bombarded with junk mail and phone calls asking for donations.
You do have a say when you vote on who the GOP, Libertarian, Dem, or any other candidate for a party. When you go to a primary, open or closed, you will be asked who the candidate should be for the offices in that specific election. Then when the general lection comes, you then have a say on who you think should win that election. what you are advocating is that a person should declare themselves to a political party first, then vote. What you don't realize is that people are not stoic when they vote from year to year to year to year. I think the key is, and should be, to vote once in an election. We have the technology to make that happen. We also need to improve the voter registration system to make sure non citizens do not vote, as applied to the current law. That should be the goal. What this does is limit people from voting. It is actually a more anti voting scheme to get less people to vote than more. And the goal is to get as many people to vote in any primary or general election. what I find sad is not whether a Dem votes for a GOP or a GOP votes for a Dem,, but the low voer turnout numbers in general and primary elections. National elections should have 90% of the eligible voters voting with slightly less number for state only or local only elections. And unfortunately, we don't get that.
In the first election, there was no political party. After George Washington left office, the third election for president, there were two primay political parties, The Democrat-Republican party and the Whig party. We brought the two party system over from old England to simplify the elections in our country, when it was so young. Today, we have primaries. A GOP or a Dem can represent me in a primary or a general election. I don't agree with100% of the GOP, but I do not disagree 100% with the GOP either. Same goes for the Dem, Libertarian, and Green parties0 And that is the point. Each demographic, resented by age, occupation, geography, or race/ethnicity will probably agree with some things on one party and other things on other parites. Rare do you have a person voting straight party ticket all the time from the date they are eligible to vote. What you want is exactly that, no ability to change votes, or make it difficult to change parties from year to year, decade to decade. .
No person has the right to tell me I must be either a Democrat or a Republican. If I choose to vote then I have the right to vote for the candidate of my choice, be it Dem or Rpub, or Libertarian, or other. If I vote in a party's primary for the purpose of making a choice then I will be voting in a party primary and cannot vote in the other party's primary or runoff. I still have not declared a party affiliation. I have only voted for the candidate of my choice. I may vote in the other party's primary in two years. But not likely.
I believe you are missing the point of Primary Elections. They are not to determine who will represent you....the people. They are determining who will represent their party in the main election. If who represents the Republican party is important to you, then you should be a member of that party. For instance, should you be able to vote for who will be the Senator from a State you are not a residence of? I would assume most people would say No.
I always thought everyone everywhere should be able to crossover. BUT THESE DAYS, it's probably not a good idea. Access to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS equal ROVIAN ATWATER NIXON DIRTY TRICKS. (No, Democrats still don't have that kind of miney!)
That is not what I am saying and that is not what I want. I have no issue with people changing parties between elections. Do not be so presumptuous. What I am saying is that if I am registered as a Republican, I should not be able to select who will represent the Democrats in the Main Elections. During the Main elections, I will still be able to vote for the candidate the Republican's selected or the candidate the Democrats selected no matter what my party affiliation is. If I am unaffiliated, I should not be able to decide who represents a party I do not belong to. If I am registered as a Republican at the time of the Primary elections, I see no issue with changing party affiliations before the Main elections.
The issue in MS isn't cross voting in primaries, but rather people who voted in the Democratic PRIMARY and then the Republican RUNOFF. Sounds like somebody doesn't understand the difference.
While I can still see issues with this, I think it would work better than open primaries where people can vote for Republican candidates AND Democrat candidates in a primary. The issue that I see is if one party has a shoe in, some people could jump parties to insure a weaker candidate is selected for the other party so that the Main election system is compromised.
If you are referring to me, I do understand the difference. You are talking about an Open Primary where people can vote on ALL party tickets vs. a Semi-open Primary where people can only vote on only ONE party's ticket no matter what party they are affiliated with. This is something I have thought about long before the MS debacle. I only used that to justify this being a current event topic.
Great, and I like the idea of voting for both the Republican AND Libertarian candidate for President. But not even the Texas primary is 'OPEN' in a sense that you can vote both parties. You get a ballot for a chosen party, so you've closed your primary door for that year. It's a primary... you're telling the party who you want to run for office. If you prefer a weaker candidate from another party then vote in that primary.
I think you do not understand the reason for the primary. The whole point of the primary is narrow the choices in the general election. And we do it through the political party. The political party, at least for major parties, is not a singular issue or a singular thought. We use political parties because that is the easiest way to narrow those choices. It is also why there are factions within the major political parties. If we do it your way, then there will need to be more parties to choose from so that indiependints can have their own primaries. This means lowering the bar on how to create a party. Thus, all members of the Tea party will form their own party and have their own primary. and then in the general election have more candidates to choose from on a regular basis. But somehow I don't think you will agree to that. - - - Updated - - - It may not be what you are saying, but it will be the end result though. - - - Updated - - - You do realize that registration rolls are share by both the Dem and the GOP or any other party that is having a primary. When the runoff occurred, it would have already been noted on which primary you have voted for or if you have not voted at all.
Except in the Primary election, you are not voting on who will BE President. You are voting on who will represent their party in the Main Elections.
A lot of libertarians and conservatives who are not happy with the GOP and are registered Independent would be cut out of the Republican Primaries. Despite the flash-in-the-pan of the McDaniel loss....I doubt that long-term they'd support closing off primaries.
In 2007 conservatives were urging registered republicans to change parties and vote for obama in the primaries and then vote for the republican candidate in the general election As a strategy to stop Hillary Clinton I find it strange that want to change the rules now
