Closed primary elections

[Old Round Guy]

Idaho wants to close it's primary elections, in that one must declare registration in one party or the other.

What happens if I want to register as Independent under that proposal? Will I even be able to vote in the primaries?

Except for the '06 elections I have never voted a straight ticket. When I voted in the primaries I could choose my party at the voting booth. Will I lose that choice?

What are your thoughts on closed primaries?

[happycat]

Closed primaries, no. A modified closed primary I could live with. After all, the primaries are for the parties to pick "their" candidate for the general election and I can see the reasoning behind wanting to keep the opposite party (regardless of which one) out of "their" choice.

I do not agree with excluding Independents. That is why I would agree with a modified closed primary. To me that is wholly unfair as they have just as much right to vote in the primary as a registered R or D.

I thought they were working on changing it to a modified closed primary? :confused:

[Notus Lotus]

Idaho wants to close it's primary elections, in that one must declare registration in one party or the other.

What happens if I want to register as Independent under that proposal? Will I even be able to vote in the primaries?

Except for the '06 elections I have never voted a straight ticket. When I voted in the primaries I could choose my party at the voting booth. Will I lose that choice?

What are your thoughts on closed primaries?

Something rankles.

On the one hand, one must declare party loyalty, and if registered as a Dem, you can't vote in Rep. primary. This ostensibly does away with dirty tricks in the primary process, ie: Dems rushing to vote for a weak Rep. candidate in order to reduce the strong candidate's chances of being in the general election...an unlikely scenario, but apparently a tactic which has been used on both sides.
On the other hand...well, there isn't really another hand. Come General Election time, you're free to vote for anybody, regardless of party affiliation.
As I understand it, Independants must choose either Rep. or Dem. in the primary.

That stinks to high heaven, IMO.

[Bruce McAuley]

Our primary system is different AGAIN, for about the 3rd time in the last 3 election cycles.:rolleyes:
This year will mark the first where a person/voter's name will be taken and recorded as swearing you are a Republican or Democrat when you attend their caucus, which are both 10 days before the ELECTION
THEN at the party caucus you can vote for who you will within the party, whether Republican or Democrat caucus that you're at.
BUT...
Only the Repubs split the national delegate vote 50% for the caucus and 50% for the Primary statewide vote. The Dems base 100% of their delegates on the caucus, and NONE on the statewide preference poll.
Wacky.

Bruce

[JIMV]

Idaho wants to close it's primary elections, in that one must declare registration in one party or the other.

What happens if I want to register as Independent under that proposal? Will I even be able to vote in the primaries?

Except for the '06 elections I have never voted a straight ticket. When I voted in the primaries I could choose my party at the voting booth. Will I lose that choice?

What are your thoughts on closed primaries?

A primary is an opportunity for a PARTY to choose its standard bearer. They must abide by the rules, are answerable to the members of the party, and they pay the bills for the thing, as many as exist. To have ringers from outside the party come in and effect the selection is simply a bad idea.

When independents do the party thing, stuff envelopes, contribute, attend rallys, write letters for candidates, and do all the other things that a party activist does, then they can have a say in the selection process.

[Old Round Guy]

I've always believed that a strong government begins at home.

Here in Idaho, for instance, if there were an independent candidate running, it's at "home" so to speak, that they have the best chance of winning.

But how much chance do they have to win if they can't get on the ballot? How much chance do they have to win if they can't compete in the primaries because the two party system is stacked against them and they have to defer till the general election to make any kind of real bid?

[lenny]

Here in Oregon we have closed primaries. I absolutely don't like them. They discourage people from participating which only benefits the moneyed interests that already have too much influence over the two big corrupt parties.

Also there's something fundamentally wrong with the idea that an American citizen can't decide who to vote for in a primary on the day of the election and cast that vote according to their conscience. When you are picking the potential next POTUS there shouldn't be voting restrictions placed on American citizens by two corrupt political parties.

[freewolf46]

Personally, I would prefer to completely do away with the two party system and the primaries as they stand.

In my ideal system there would be a primary and a general election. The primary would be held on the same day for everyone in the country. The candidates would be offered up without party affiliation separating them on the ballot or in any other way. They could belong to a political party, but there would not be separate primaries, caucuses, or anything else for the primary.

All would be on the same ballot, presented to the entire public, on the same day.

The top three winners from the primary would go on to the general election.

In the general election, the winner of each state would get the delegates for that state.

[McGyver]

Personally, I would prefer to completely do away with the two party system and the primaries as they stand.

In my ideal system there would be a primary and a general election. The primary would be held on the same day for everyone in the country. The candidates would be offered up without party affiliation separating them on the ballot or in any other way. They could belong to a political party, but there would not be separate primaries, caucuses, or anything else for the primary.

All would be on the same ballot, presented to the entire public, on the same day.

The top three winners from the primary would go on to the general election.

In the general election, the winner of each state would get the delegates for that state.

I'm liking it! And No One could start campaigning until 3 months out from The General Election....and No one could spend over $1Million...And No One could spend ANY of his own money to run for office.. I truly hope that no matter WHO gets elected in November, that they take a long hard look at the way this country BUYS elections, and put an immediate stop to it...as well as the Obscene amounts of money that are required to run for office in this country! That is one of the reasons I was so thrilled about Huckabee's success last night.....He lived within his budget and ONLY spent what he had (budgeted) to spend....What a Concept! While Romney put in Millions of Dollars of his own money. That's wrong and should Never be allowed. I am sick and tired of "The one with the most money wins!" And I care which party we're talking about....It's not right or left, it's right or wrong!

[JIMV]

And citizens would lose their ability to freely band together and work toward the same political end. Individual candidates would lose their baility to organize their supporters, and more successful candidates, more serious ones, would lose that advantage as a host of want-to-be candidates all crowd the stage.