I really wonder why voters (in the U.S.) have to be registered with a political party to vote in the primaries.
My ideal, would be that only politicians register as party members. Voters themselves would not be officially a part of any political party.
In the primaries all voters would get to vote for the one candidate they liked best from each political party (vote once for each political party), and the winners would go on to the general elections (vote once for each office).
I believe this would eliminate most of the extremists from each party, making those elected to be mostly moderates, which would mean they are able to actually work together more and there would be less government gridlock and government, in general, would work more efficiently.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
16 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.There are really three different systems in use in the U.S., and which system is used differs from state to state.
A caucus is where there are local meetings for each party where delegates to a state convention are selected, based upon the candidate(s) chosen at the meeting. Registration is required and voting is public (i.e., if you vote for a particular delegate/candidate everyone at the meeting potentially knows how you voted.) Registration is necessary to ensure every individual attends only the meeting for the party of registration. The actual candidates are chosen at the convention.
A closed primary is an election, where your vote is private. You must be registered to vote, including naming your party of choice (your party of record,) and you are supplied a ballot listing only that party's candidates. You may not vote for a candidate not belonging to your party of record.
An open primary is also an election, where your vote is private. However, while you must be registered to vote you need not declare a party of record (and, in most cases, the question is never asked.) Anyone may vote for any candidate from any party.
Personally, I have never participated in a caucus or a closed primary, only an open primary.
firecracker
Level 6
Feb 13, 2018
1
Some say it's because it would leave the door open for everyone who has an opposing ideology to vote for who they think is the weakest candidate so that their real candidate would have an easier chance at winning when they face the weak candidate.
I think it leaves out Independents who are usually the deciding factor. I'm a registered Democrat. I would be a registered Independent (even though I lean more Green) if NY didn't have a closed primary. I hate these labels. As soon as you say you lean Green, people think you're a radical leftist. People need to learn these definitions instead of listening to idiots who think everyone left of them is Karl Marx.
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
Feb 12, 2018
2
You are correct. It would be terrible for only the worst douche canoes to have the opportunity to become elected simply because opposing factions voted them in.
I like your idea. I would change it to voters can vote for one person in the primary, doesn’t matter which party. Then the top 3 or 4 primary winners would head to the general election.
Term limits would be good, as would getting the money out of the elections, maybe forcing candidates to pass a civics test.
CS60
Level 7
Feb 12, 2018
1
That is called "open primaries". We actually do that here in Washington State. The two candidates with teh most votes run off in the general election.
My idea was more about how to get the extremists out of the running. I'll think aobu tit some more.
Primaries differ from state to state. Some states have "open primaries " where you are free to vote for anyone from any party. Other states have " closed primaries " where you can ONLY vote for a candidate of the party you are registered with. Either way, our democracy is completely messed up and is actually an oligarchy. I hope this helps clear it up a little.
Twisty420
Level 4
Feb 12, 2018
6
I've lived in states with both open and closed primaries. i currently live in Washington state, which has open primaries.
My idea was more to mostly get rid of the extremists in the primaries, so those who get into office are almost all moderates and those elected will actually find some common ground, compromise and actually make the government work better.. I am still thinking it through, but the above is the best i have come up with so far to get a working government.
We need these things:
- Publicly funded elections (elimination of PACs/dark money)
- Elimination of super delegates in Democratic Party
- One person, one vote (no more electoral college)
Marz
Level 7
Feb 12, 2018
6
I agree with you fully. It is how to get representatives who will actually make those changes that isx the problem. I actually see my idea as more likley to get politicians who would do the above than oru current system.
It would be nice if we could accomplish what you suggest in one fell swoop, but it is more likely to happen by slowly edging in that general direction. I think taking a step to mostly eliminate extremists from reaching office (my suggestion) is a little step towards the bigger goal.
Actually I know some people who register with the opposite party that they are aligned with in order to vote in the primaries for the weaker candidate in the party that they do not like. I used to be for open primaries until I met those people and saw how proud they were to do that.
noworry28
Level 8
Feb 12, 2018
7
One of my professors in college did that. He registered republican to vote fo the most progressive republican candidate in the primaries, then usually voted democrat in the general election.
In a closed primary system, I think it is a valid strategy. We have open primaries in
Washington State. In open primaries that strategy doesn't work, because the two candidates with the most votes goon to the general elections, and they can both be from a single party. So you cast your one vote for the candidate you lie best in the primaries.
If it was left to me, money would not be an issue for who can run and what they can do to get elected. That would open it to everyone and hopefully get a better representation of the people.
ChrisJones
Level 6
Feb 12, 2018
2
Campaign finance reform is what we need, but unfortunately I do not think it will ever be done. Both parties take in too much money from special interest groups. There is no incentive to enact any laws to reform the current system.
In California, a special election for governor was a mess because they had so many candidates, and they ended up with Arnold Swatzenager. he was well intentioned, but lacked experience to really know what he was doing... not to be compared with TRump who lacks experience, but ran to boost his own ego and basically to make himself richer.
Well, if you get right down to it, we do it in a lot of things. An example of this is Football. We have divisional races, the conference and finally afc/nfc play for the world championship. Okay dumb example. But it’s a system that is not just limited to political parties.
ChrisJones
Level 6
Feb 12, 2018
1
Depends on how you look at it. There is the NFL and the AFL, and the winner from each goes to the Super Bowl.
Might enables "gerrymandering" to be optimized.
jlynn37
Level 8
Feb 12, 2018
0
I think Gerry Mandering shoudl be simply outlawed as unconstitutional.
It allows politicians to pretty much pick their voters rather than voters to pick their politicians (representatives). This makes politicians more concerned about the concerns of campaign contributors than they are about the concerns of their constituents.
It's to give the political parties more power. By splitting the voter bases.
GrantSmith
Level 6
Feb 12, 2018
4
This.^
If voters are not officially a registered with any party, their voter loyalty wont' likely be as strong.
I am not 100% sure that the parties might not find a way to exploit my suggestion. I am open to suggestions.
Part of the idea is that if people have an agenda, they will have to read about the candidates for both sides to accomplish their end goals (find the least threatening candidate on the other side). Right now people tend to only read or listen to one side only.
I don't think my idea doesn't have drawbacks, but I am open to hearing suggestions for a better idea or how to improve the proposal.
The original idea was so you couldn't go and vote for the opposing party's worst candidate...but that's what we ended up with, anyhow! Florida is considering open primaries. there are a few states which have them.
koshkamat
Level 6
Feb 12, 2018
7
Confession time... I have registered Republican for many years because I feel that voting against someone has mathematically slightly more effect (as small as that is anyway) than voting for someone.
In the real world it's much more effective to influence people -- to multiply your vote with effort -- than it is just to vote.
@RichCC your theory was correct. That's how we got President Trump.
We have open primaries here in Washington Sate. The two candidates with the most votes run off in the general election regardless of which party they are with. It has both drawbacks and good aspects. I think it is slightly more good than bad.
The parties are private clubs. They are in no way legal authorities until they are elected to an actual position. Then the person affiliated with that party has the power, not the club.
jayneonacobb
Level 7
Feb 12, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.