Open Primaries

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

Hi folks,

Here in Oregon, we have always had closed primaries.  One can only vote for candidates of their own party.

Some of us do care for that:  Part of our problem with our politics here and throughout the country right now is that the political party process and the primaries drive us to the extremes of both the Democratic and the Republican Party

Multipartisan effort aims to open Oregon’s primaries through ballot initiative in 2026 • Oregon Capital Chronicle

What's it like in your state?  And, do you like it?

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,647]

Texas always had open primaries; you can vote for whoever you want if you're not registered. Massachusetts is similar, but not quite as open apparently. The town I live in now is far more one-sided than Texas and Houston were, so it hasn't mattered.

I'm all for them. I'd frankly even love an effectively open election, with ranked choice voting to sort it out. Until that, too, gets figured out thoroughly and gamed to death.

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,231]

I believe one should be a fully paid-up member of a party in order to influence its decisions.  If you want to game the system by voting for a poor candidate of the "other" party, at least you should have paid them for the privilege.

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Texas always had open primaries; you can vote for whoever you want if you're not registered. Massachusetts is similar, but not quite as open apparently. The town I live in now is far more one-sided than Texas and Houston were, so it hasn't mattered.

I'm all for them. I'd frankly even love an effectively open election, with ranked choice voting to sort it out. Until that, too, gets figured out thoroughly and gamed to death.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

I'm with you.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Sorry, John; I do not agree.  The political parties are what has given us the loonies on both ends of the bell curve.

 

[wmw999 2,647]

Yep. I can understand sort of the thought that the people who pay to organize should get some say, but I think we've over-perfected that model.

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Yep. I can understand sort of the thought that the people who pay to organize should get some say, but I think we've over-perfected that model.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

I know that each state is unique; but, here is how we shake out in Oregon:

IMO this is why we do not need or want political parties.  They've had their days; and, they screwed it up.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I'm one of those Non-affiliated.

[nigel99 689]

42 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

I know that each state is unique; but, here is how we shake out in Oregon:

IMO this is why we do not need or want political parties.  They've had their days; and, they screwed it up.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I'm one of those Non-affiliated.

https://youtu.be/nUn1A0sEDrc?si=jcOy3pPzDOzcbFFZ

I really enjoyed this interview of Bernie Sanders by Jon Stewart. It feels like it lays out a path forward that could be made to work if people got behind it.

[kallend 2,231]

Why should  a political party be any different from any other organization?

You can't vote for president of your local country club/bowling league/softball league/ . . . unless you're a member.

You can't vote for leadership of any corporation unless you're a shareholder.

You can't vote for the next Pope unless you're a member of the College.

[billvon 3,176]

20 hours ago, kallend said:

I believe one should be a fully paid-up member of a party in order to influence its decisions. 

Not a fan of poll taxes.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

Why should  a political party be any different from any other organization?

You can't vote for president of your local country club/bowling league/softball league/ . . . unless you're a member.

You can't vote for leadership of any corporation unless you're a shareholder.

You can't vote for the next Pope unless you're a member of the College.

Hi John,

Every example you show is simply restricting voting.

Why would you want to do that in politics?  The most important voting process in the country.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 3,026]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Why should  a political party be any different from any other organization?

You can't vote for president of your local country club/bowling league/softball league/ . . . unless you're a member.

You can't vote for leadership of any corporation unless you're a shareholder.

You can't vote for the next Pope unless you're a member of the College.

Another closet conservative. I'll be damned.

[kallend 2,231]

19 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

Every example you show is simply restricting voting.

Why would you want to do that in politics?  The most important voting process in the country.

Jerry Baumchen

Everyone has rhe opportunity to vote in the general election.  There's no restriction.  This is about choosing the candidate for a particular party.  It's illogical to allow non-members to contaminate the party's choice, often with spoiler votes,

[wmw999 2,647]

38 minutes ago, kallend said:

Everyone has rhe opportunity to vote in the general election.  There's no restriction.  This is about choosing the candidate for a particular party.  It's illogical to allow non-members to contaminate the party's choice, often with spoiler votes,

The current system, particularly with closed primaries, is what’s leading to increasingly polarized candidates. They appeal to the hard-core faithful, but no one else. Is that really a good thing in your mind, particularly where there are, effectively, only two parties?

Wendy P. 

[kallend 2,231]

The fact that there are only two viable parties in the USA is a different issue altogether.  

IMO any organization should be able to choose its leaders without interference from outsiders.  That includes political parties.

 

Perhaps Canada, China, Mexico and the EU should be allowed to vote for the US president?

Edited Saturday at 02:22 PM by kallend

[billvon 3,176]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

IMO any organization should be able to choose its leaders without interference from outsiders.  

Private organizations, sure.  Public organizations - no.

[jakee 1,649]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

The current system, particularly with closed primaries, is what’s leading to increasingly polarized candidates. They appeal to the hard-core faithful, but no one else. 

Partly - but taken in isolation you don't need to worry about more of the polarized candidates winning. That's more a consequence of extreme gerrymandering leading to an increase in the number of cast iron safe districts where a candidate can have zero appeal to any moderates or independents while still being guaranteed to win.

And that's kind of a problem with this whole discussion. It needed to happen 20 years ago before every branch of the system was effectively captured by the radicals.

[kallend 2,231]

49 minutes ago, billvon said:

Private organizations, sure.  Public organizations - no.

Are political parties funded by taxpayer money over and above the $3 that goes towards eligible presidential candidates of any party (or none)?

[wmw999 2,647]

37 minutes ago, kallend said:

Are political parties funded by taxpayer money over and above the $3 that goes towards eligible presidential candidates of any party (or none)?

You seem to be making debate-style points in favor of a system, with the hope of engaging someone so that you can eviscerate them intellectually online.  

You're better educated and smarter than the anti-vaxxers and others, but it's still in favor of a point that in the long run is not a good one. That's not a game most of us are in favor of playing; do you actually like our financially-beholden two-party system, or is this just sparring? Do you have any arguments in favor of it (it's certainly not law or laid down in the Constitution -- I see the Constitution as the rules of the game; changeable, but definitely the structure). The two-party system we've evolved is more like a house rule (e.g. you can look up Scrabble words if you're under 13). 

Wendy P.

[kallend 2,231]

17 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You seem to be making debate-style points in favor of a system, with the hope of engaging someone so that you can eviscerate them intellectually online.  

You're better educated and smarter than the anti-vaxxers and others, but it's still in favor of a point that in the long run is not a good one. That's not a game most of us are in favor of playing; do you actually like our financially-beholden two-party system, or is this just sparring? Do you have any arguments in favor of it (it's certainly not law or laid down in the Constitution -- I see the Constitution as the rules of the game; changeable, but definitely the structure). The two-party system we've evolved is more like a house rule (e.g. you can look up Scrabble words if you're under 13). 

Wendy P.

I think that is insulting.

I don't believe any non-criminal organization** should have its decision making influenced by people who won't belong to it and may well have the intention of damaging the organization.

 

**Edit - right now this may exclude the Guardians Of Pedophiles party.

Edited Saturday at 05:28 PM by kallend

[jakee 1,649]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

That's not a game most of us are in favor of playing; do you actually like our financially-beholden two-party system, or is this just sparring? Do you have any arguments in favor of it (it's certainly not law or laid down in the Constitution -- I see the Constitution as the rules of the game; changeable, but definitely the structure). The two-party system we've evolved is more like a house rule (e.g. you can look up Scrabble words if you're under 13).

That's more than a stretch. How did you go from "why do you think political parties should be able to choose their own candidates?" to "why are you in favour of every aspect of the current two party dominance and campaign funding rules of the US?"?

It doesn't make sense, and makes it seem like it's you pulling debate points out of thin air rather than reading and responding to what was actually said.

[billvon 3,176]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

Are political parties funded by taxpayer money over and above the $3 that goes towards eligible presidential candidates of any party (or none)?

Often taxpayer funds maintain the facilities that political parties use for free - like public halls and convention spaces.  But overall there's far more private donations than public funding.

Keeping independent voters from voting for people in either party's primary leads to further polarization and penalizes centrist candidates.

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

Often taxpayer funds maintain the facilities that political parties use for free - like public halls and convention spaces.  But overall there's far more private donations than public funding.

Keeping independent voters from voting for people in either party's primary leads to further polarization and penalizes centrist candidates.

Hi Bill,

Re:  Keeping independent voters from voting for people in either party's primary leads to further polarization and penalizes centrist candidates.

This is exactly why I am for open primaries.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 3,026]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Are political parties funded by taxpayer money over and above the $3 that goes towards eligible presidential candidates of any party (or none)?

The bees don't tell the gardener where to get his seed money or which flowers to plant and the bees can't be told which flowers to pollinate. It's a very good system.

[kallend 2,231]

18 hours ago, billvon said:

Often taxpayer funds maintain the facilities that political parties use for free - like public halls and convention spaces.  But overall there's far more private donations than public funding.

Keeping independent voters from voting for people in either party's primary leads to further polarization and penalizes centrist candidates.

SO it's OK with you if the Dems decide to sabotage the Greens by encouraging their supporters to turn out in force in the primary to elect  oil company execs to be the Green candidate?  Or the GOP to sabotage the Libertarians in an equivalent manner?

That thinking encourages polarization and perpetuates a two party system.

 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,493]

Hi folks,

Just to follow-up somewhat; IMO the best system is doing away with political parties all together.  Then, add Ranked Choice voting.

Every candidate would have to run on what she/he stands for.

Here in Oregon, there are five state-wide offices.  Only one, the Commissioner of Labor & Industries is a non-partisan office.  Nobody seems to be concerned that that office is non-partisan.

Jerry Baumchen