I would say don't affiliate with any party. And maybe you should try getting out of Oregon for a while.
IMHO, only someone who declares themselves a party member should be able to vote in that party's primary. If you don't want to join a party, then you should'nt be voting in the primary to elect that party's nominees. It's just common sense. Also, open primaries make for a lot of complications, like the recent controversy in Mississippi. About 30 yrs ago, in AL, a similar situation happened in the primary for the governor's race.
Hmm, Obama raised and spent more in his campaign than Romney. Big money supports both sides. Don't delude yourself that it's just the Republicans that are supported by the rich. If you are truly anti-huge campaigns, you should be supporting Tea Party Republicans, who for the most part are telling the corporations and big business to get lost.
What you mean is the open primary allows scum from the democrat party to vote for their weakest opponent to stand against them in the general election. The founding fathers did not intend a government of frauds, liars, and corrupt socialists. I am not a member of any party, but I register with a party so I can vote in the primaries. Unless you're a leftist, registering doesn't require any sort of oath of allegiance.
Primary elections were designed, from the outset, to be way to determine candidates from different parties to meet in the general elections. The only reason for open primaries is to weaken the vote of party members.
It's like motor voter and dead people voting. Everything the Democrat Party does is designed to destroy any semblance of democracy.
IC. Sorry, I wasn't addressing anybody in particular... just wondered why nobody had made the distinction between a primary and a runoff election. Had my own puzzling exp with this subject in our recent runoff elections when I went to the wrong polling place, signed in and was handed a ballot for the Democrats... even though VOTED REPUBLICAN is stamped on my voter ID card. I made it all the way to the booth before I saw Wendy Davis' name and knew there was something bad wrong! Handed it back to the folks at the table and they told me I needed to drive a few miles to where the Republicans were voting. Obviously, one can switch parties for runoff elections. At least I nearly did and I wasn't even trying. Edit: Went back and re-read the OP and since Texas is an open primary state... not convinced switching to closed would be a good idea. The only way I've ever 'aligned' myself with a political party is voluntarily. Why should I be forced to decide beforehand?
I have just as much stake in choosing which candidate can represent me in the general election whther I am registered with a party or not. I will let you represent your party duing your party's convention in choosing and establishing a platform, bylaws, and state party leaders. That I will not do.
Actually, once you register with a party, you are a member until you notify them otherwise. Thus, you are wanting loyalty to he part first, then to country. The communist Party has this ideal and now the Tea Party wants ot being it ot all under the façade of "freedom" No freedom there except by the point of a gun.
My state has closed primary elections. So far it works.. The general election with hanging chads caused the most problems, my state finally got that squared away.
Why do people even register for parties? It's not like they're a constitutional part of our electoral system.
Nonsense. When I lived in a Democrat state, the winner of the Democrat primary was going to win the election by hook or by crook. So, I registered as a Democrat so I could vote in the primary. I did not donate to the Democrats, I wasn't a racist, I didn't fit the profile of their base in any way. I even voted only once. When I moved to a Republican state, I registered as a Republican so I could vote in the primaries for the same reason I registered as a Democrat before. I didn't donate money to the Republicans, I still wasn't a racist, but I didn't consider myself a "Republican". What you consider me is none of my business or my concern but your statement that if I register as a Republican I am a Republican is nonsense.
What you are stating is that the opposing primary party is weak, or was weak,in the general election. We have this too on some county, state, and federal races when one party fields a candidate and the other party does not. Additionally, in my state, if you vote in the primaries three or four consecutive times, you are considered a registered dem or GOP. But we have a open primary, just as you have. but in a closed primary, what I stated is true and how those primaries work, generally.
On the base of the Italian experience [so far only the Democrat Party runs real primary elections with millions of citizens registering and voting: it's evident that exiting the primary elections only for a party it would be impossible to "close" them: how can you know if an elector who has voted in the Democrat primaries will vote for Berlusconi in the political general elections? You cannot ...] I have to say that the arguments for close primary elections [even valid] are not totally persuading. From a mere political perspective, close primary elections could be even a problem. *They attract less center electors [the one who changing opinion in the last weeks of electoral campaign decide the final result] *They reduce the popular participation [giving less base activity to the party] *They generate the sense that the party "fears" not to have a so strong identity If 3,000,000 of Italians [more than the 6% of the electors!] have voted for the Democrat primary elections it was also because they were open [just Renzi fought against the direction of his own party to avoid too closing rules, and he even obtained to make minor teens vote!]. Those elections were a fantastic launch for Renzi [who has obtained the Government simply because of his power in the Party]. Were those 3,000,000 all Democrats? I doubt. And the dimension of the mass of people has for sure made irrelevant any "right pollution" in those primaries. But, they have called to vote many electors of the area of center, as I said before, the ones who change opinion. Have they voted PD in the regional elections or in the EU elections for real? We will never know. But for sure they have expressed an orientation which has affected the orientation of the PD, helping the party to conquer more than the 40% of the electorate in the European Elections.
YES - Primary elections should be closed. In PA. they are. Republicans should NOT determine Democratic elections and Democrats should NOT determine Republican elections.
I voted 'no'. I am not certain why we taxpayers pay for party primaries in the first place- why should a Republican have to pay to help the Democratic Party decide who their candidate is? BUT if we taxpayers are paying for the election, then I think we should be allowed to vote in any primary where we are registered voters. If either party doesn't like that, let them hold their own primaries and pay for them themselves.
You don't have to be a "party member". That phrase has some significance for communists but for most of us it simply means registering to vote in a primary. When I registered as a Republican in a state where Democrats rarely had primaries, I didn't get a party card saying I was a Republican. When I lived in and registered as a Democrat in a state that had mostly Democrat primaries I didn't get a party card, either. I did get inundated with junk mail but it goes with the party. Why should liberals, socialists, and communists decide who will run for election as a Republican?
Pay attention that this stance implies that it's impossible [or even illegal????] that an elector changes opinion some days before of the elections, while this happens in reality ... Furthermore, it implies that after a declaration of membership [the registration for the primary] an elector is legally obliged to respect that registration [while this would be simply unconstitutional, since no one can be sure that someone who has voted for Democrat primaries will vote Democrat at the election ... vote has to be secret in democracy].
If you're not in a particular party you should have no stake in determining who represents the party in the election. It makes no sense.
Of course there is freedom. You can join whatever party you want, and can quit that party whenever you want. - - - Updated - - - They are a choice. If you don't want to register in a political party, don't.
I didn't forget them and I certainly don't think they think for themselves. But, why should Sen. Sanders supporters decide who will run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
There is another option. Let each party decide the risks and benefits for allowing the inclusion of non-party members to vote in their primary, because in fact there are both risks and benefits to this decision for the party. They would determine their desires and inform the Secretary of State/ elections whether to prepare a closed ballet. If their chief worry is that the base will drive the nominating process too far from the mainstream to be viable in the general, they will choose an open primary. If their chief worry is that non-partiers, or worse opposite party members will rig the election or produce a candidate that has virtually no ties to the values of the party, they will choose a closed primary. It is entirely possible that the major parties might see this differently from minor parties who may want to gain more public interest by being open to independants. It also would not be unreasonable to expect each party to reimburse the state for the costs of preparing their ballet. Those voters who choose to remain non-aligned during the primary season, are making a risk/ benefit choice by doing so. They need to stop whining.
