Daily Kos & by Kos: Open primaries? No, no and hell no (HRC GP)

[Her Sister]

EXCERPTS:

There’s no problem with the first three bullet points, though those are all based on state law and elections machinery. The Democratic Party has no control over them, which is why I now advocate for the party to wholly take over the primary process.

But the idea that it is “incomprehensible” that non-Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee is, well, incomprehensible.

There is no point to a political party unless that party can decide for itself who represents it. It costs nothing to register as a Democrat (or Republican). No one even knows which party you register under. The only reason to register as an independent is because you think you are too good or pure or uncorrupted to be a member of a party. And if that’s the case? Good for you! We are all duly impressed. So shiny and perfect!

But fuck you, you don’t get to pick our candidates.

I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room.

You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story.

Of course, Sanders’ list doesn’t include caucuses, which are an abomination of democracy and dramatically depressed turnout (and I wrote that piece before the Nebraska and Washington non-binding primaries, which had dramatically bigger turnout than the caucuses—even though they did not matter). I wonder why the guy who insisted on everyone voting would suddenly clamp down when discussing those undemocratic caucuses?

CONCLUSION:

As for open primaries? Hell no. If you want a say, join the party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/06/15/1538965/-Open-primaries-No-no-and-hell-no

[tonyt53]

1. Join it and participate in it, and to hell with a caucus. Those are anti-democratic.

[Her Sister]

2. We cannot allow people to come and try to weaken our party !

[Koinos]

3. Good common sense post from Kos.

[BobbyDrake]

4. The malcontents are the people who can't do the hard work to make an alternate party.

Do you think the Working Families Party sprang forth fully formed? No, people built it, over time, with effort. They didn't just get to steal someone else's party.

People who are exclusively angry will never build anything. Such folks only want to destroy, because they're bitter and jealous.

[teamster633]

5. No sale, Bernie.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I'm with Kos on this, and where the hell do I sign up? I think the party's rank-n-file should get..

a say before they go "opening up the process" to outsiders. There's too much room for chicanery in these open primaries. If Indies want to nominate someone who can't possibly win a GE, this would give them the power to do so. I'm AGAINST it. And if they decide to get rid of super delegates, they should dump the caucuses at the same time.

[skylucy]

25. 1000000+ I absolutely agree with you.

[George II]

7. I've been following Presidential elections since the early 1970s, and I don't recall....

....EVER seeing anyone complaining about primaries not being open. In fact, it has been the other way around for the most part (if not exclusively) - candidates and voters have wanted less open primaries.

[SharonClark]

9. That's the truth!

[NastyRiffraff]

8. My favorite part:

"But fuck you, you don’t get to pick our candidates."

Exactly. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[wildeyed]

10. I think that either we open the primaries or fix the gerrymandering.

There also has to be a reasonable standard to allow third-party candidates to get on the ballot. My state has some of the most prohibitive rules in the nation. Only the Libertarian Party has managed to clear the bar and it took them decades. I don't have much patience with the Greens, but I sign their petitions for ballot access every single time someone holds it in front of my face.

And we need to get some public funding for campaigns, give the newbies some seed money to get started.

I have little patience for Sanders and his minions coming and trying to change the rules of the halfway through the game when it became evident they were losing. That is sour grapes. But the frustration they are expressing with the two-party system and candidate choice is real and has been evident to me for ages. Most districts are not competitive. Whoever shows up with a D or R next to their name in the GE wins. It is impossible for third-party candidates to even get on the ballot in many states and then they get shut out of the debates. So the only way to win is to be a D or an R. The independents and third-party people are effectively shut out of the system. Like it or not, there are more of those every year. People who are not mainstream Dem or Rep are frustrated. Hell, *I* am frustrated. This is not a good system. Something has to give.

IMO, either the Democratic Party makes a SERIOUS effort to fix the gerrymandering and states lower the bar for third-party ballot access or we open the primaries. If we don't do something we will face more rebellion in our ranks in coming years.

Also, from my experience doing tons of voter registration and GOTV, most who don't register with a party don't because they know nothing about what the parties represent. I only do this work in high-poverty, predominantly minority areas and I can assert that the lack of party ID has nothing to do with purity or privilege. Either the parties are not doing good outreach or they are not addressing people's issues. Both?



If we made primaries more competitive, it might be GOOD for the party. Clinton won against Sanders, even in open primaries, because she was a better candidate and ran a better campaign. She EARNED it. I am not afraid to see more unaffiliated voters come into the system because I support strong candidates and believe they can win. It would also give the party a chance to make their pitch to unaffiliated voters who are unfamiliar with our values, revitalizing the base in the process. I dunno. Seems like there is a big upside to open primaries if we are willing to take some risks.

[Walk away]

12. Isn't that for states to decide? The Democratic party has no business...

running anyone but Democrats in their primaries. State parties decide their rules for voting.

[wildeyed]

13. Not sure what you mean.

States are run by politicians who are affiliated with a party. In my state, NC, the Democrats are very complicit in making the rules that make it nearly impossible for third parties to get on the GE ballot. But we also have semi-open primaries for both parties. Pretty sure the rules for primaries are set at the state level here. It seems to vary from state to state.

[Walk away]

19. That is what I mean.

To make the changes you want you would have to get each state to change.
If Donald Trump doesn't suggest to you why there might be this series of safe guards and hurdles that make it difficult for any demigod or crackpot preying on the fears or greed or bigotry of a segment of the electorate then I don't know what to tell you.
In order to run as a 3rd party candidate you have to have built some sort of legitimate party of your own. It takes time to build and that makes sense. I wouldn't fly on a plane piloted by someone who had no idea what they were doing and no crew.

[wildeyed]

22. Sure, but we make it hard for third parties in ways that stifle democracy.

It is a two-party system, not a parliamentary system, so by default, the two parties function more as coalitions than actual parties. Calling ourselves "The Big Tent Party" and then getting all grabby and territorial about the levers of power when other coalition members have complaints is not going to work for long. IMO.

And Donald Trump suggests to me why we should strive to make the system work better for people who feel left out of the process. Republican voters just nuked their party. Democrats made a feeble attempt to do the same. The control of Congress has been whipping back and forth with voters getting more dissatisfied and unhappy with each change. Why? I think it is because the two party system is not working well and both political parties are ossified. It is the big money, gerrymandering, racial unease, economic change. Citizens are unhappy right now, and they do want change. It is not Clinton's fault, or DWS or any of the other silly paper tigers the Sanders camp puts up. But the dissatisfaction is real and longstanding. If the Democratic Party digs in and refuses to recognize this, they will go the same way the GOP is going now. It is change or die, IMO.

You are technically correct in all that you said. It IS the party's right to run their party and primaries any way they see fit. But I believe that if we shut it down, ignore the trend of independent voter and try to discourage competitive candidates, the party will fail and be replaced, the same way that the GOP is being replaced. It happens all the time. We haven't always been Democrats and Republicans in this country.

But I also want to emphasize that there is a great opportunity for Democrats right now if they play their cards right. The political landscape is shifting which means many doors are getting ready to open for those who are prepared to lead. We have a winning strategy with the Obama coalition and a steady leader in Hillary Clinton. I think we should trust our party's talent, vision, and core values. We don't need to worry too much about open vs. closed primaries. If our vision and candidates are better we will win in either system. Clinton DID win in open primaries too. Remeber that.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Gerrymandering is performed by the party in charge, it should be done away with but in Texas

the gerrymandering lines was drawn by Tom Delay and the state looks like a terrible puzzle, all designed to have more Republicans elected. Go back to the county lines and whatever happens happens.

All primaries are open, just register for the party in which you wish to vote, this is a choice a voter makes, there are deadlines to register party wise but all the complaining is because there was not enough attention given to the requirements of whether the primary was open, semi-open or closed. The Sanders could have given this information last year but apparently allow the time to pass before doing so and just complained afterwards.

[wildeyed]

17. Democrats gerrymander too.

We need non-partisan committees to fix the problem.

And bluntly, I was registered independent for ages because I lived in a Rep district. There was no Democratic primary for local races and rarely even a GE candidate. The only way to have a say was to vote in the primary. Because my state is semi-open, it was not a problem. Doesn't mean I am not a real Democrat, a rat fucker or whatever. I don't think I should be forced to re-register every election just because I want to vote for the least-worst Rep candidate in a primary every 2-4 years.

I am in no way defending Sanders' bid to change the rules 1/2 way through the game. The rules are the rules, and after the first whistle blows, you play by them. But I am presenting what I think are some legit complaints about the two-party system and reasons we might want to change things in the future.

Open primaries are not the end of the world. I know that puts me in the minority in this group, but Clinton was the best candidate, and she WON many open contests, no problem. It made the race a bit more volatile, but I'm ok with that if it gets more voters involved. A competitive primary gives us the opportunity to introduce our values to voters who have been tuned-out. I think we can persuade them to our side.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Yes Democrats is also guilty of gerrymandering. Let it go by county lines, they are already drawn

and whatever happens is what is happening.

[LiberalFighter]

26. If a third party is going to be viable they need to be better organized.

That means they need to have a party structure that doesn't go away after each election. If they have a party structure with members and activists they wouldn't have to worry about the rules about getting on the ballot once they qualify.

[wildeyed]

28. Chicken or the egg problem....

They can't get on the ballot so it is hard to attract support so they can't get on the ballot. They are mostly spoilers anyway, except in very local elections. If we went to a ranked preference ballot, that would eliminate the spoiler issue, but that is too rad for most people to comprehend at this point. Baby steps....

In the meantime, the independent voters exist, and that demographic is growing. The Democratic Party can acknowledge that and try to work with them, convert them to allies, or go the way of the GOP. The GOP is dying, in part, because they can't wrap their heads around the changes in our electorate. I don't want the Dems to make a similar mistake, is all.

We have all been making fun of #BernieMath for the past few month. And lord knows it HAS been amusing. But for us to pretend those independent voters are not a growing force in politics would be the same thing. Ignoring mathematical facts because they do not fit our narrative is not a winning strategy.

IMO, either we let the indy candidates run legit as third-party with a chance to win or we allow them to participate in choosing our party candidates. We can certainly justify shutting them out for the process, but I do not think this is a wise choice, long term. The GOP did that and their base just burned them down. Sanders is the warning shot across the Democratic Party's bow. I do not like Bernie Sanders. Anyone who know my posts knows that is true. But this is not about Sanders, really. It is about how demographics are changing and parties are shifting in this country. You cannot ignore these kinds of demographic shifts and survive politically. It is what it is.

[Walk away]

11. Using the leverage of his adoring followers to fire DWS who was leaving after the convention....

is a slap in the face of all of those people who slavishly attend his rallies and send him their $$$$. What possible benefit is there to the "Revolution" to fire someone he hates a month before her job is done????

It is so petty and mean spirited.

I am no fan of Debbie Wasserman Schultz but his bitter vetch is just embarrassing and completely unproductive.

[Cha]

15. And, that's his MO.. "petty and mean spirited".. he lost so he has to blame it on anyone

but himself.

[Cha]

16. Love KOS.. he speaks for me..

"But **** you, you don’t get to pick our candidates."

Thank you, Her Sister!

[Number23]

20. He speaks for me too! And he has been tearing it up for the last 2-3 months

Sanders' poorly run campaign and incredibly self-serving end has unleashed alot of Democrats lately.

[Cha]

21. I know.. I'm been loving what KOS has had to say about the bernster.

I also loved what the msnbc panel had to say. Some damn reality to counteract all the BS.

23~

[eastwestdem]

23. Couldn't agree more. nt

[ProudProgressiveNow]

24. K&R nt

[liberal N proud]

27. These things are in place to keep from having a Trump on the Democratic ticket

Keep the Super Delegates as well. Both closed primaries and Super Delegates are what keeps an outsider (BS) from taking control of a long standing organization.