Fixing our broken primary systems

Can someone tell me why people are allowed to cross party lines to vote in a primary for a candidate they have no intention of supporting in the general election? It causes the party to end up with a nominee they despise.

Recent case in point: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/24/Cochran-McDaniel-Results-Legal-Challenges

I'd be very interested in your thoughts. In the meantime, we can hope McDaniels wins in court.

 

It's state by state. Each state has it's choice of how to run primaries. In FL, we have a closed primary, meaning that only people that are registered party members can vote in a particular party's primary.

 

I'll do some surfing and try to find out of there's any kind of national movement to fix this. It's this sort of garbage that gave us McCain in 2008. Feel free to post any links you might have. Something worth contributing to.

 

Some states do not even allow registration with party affiliation which I find more desirable than closed primaries. If you want to keep the riff-raff out, have caucuses, because nothing screams democracy like smoke-filled, back-room star chambers. I assume that is why the democrats in my state prefer the caucus system for less than president candidates. They are very establishment like that.

Besides, karma is a female dog--I voted for Obama in the democratic primary to help stop Hillary and look at how well that turned out for America.

 

I beleive it should be up to the states to decide. It is not a national issue. I've lived (and voted) in both open and closed primary states. I prefer closed primary, as there are less issues like the above. That said, it's up to the states to decide.

 

I would prefer a system where you could vote for a candidate in each party's primary, that way I would be able to vote for whomever I would believe to do the best job from that party. Why should I have to put all of my eggs into one basket?

Now for the actual election I would rather have no party designations on the ballot, you could still belong to a party and such. But on the ballot, it would just list the positions up for election and the candidates that were running for it.

 

Is it your contention that people who decline to join a political party should not be allowed to vote?

 

But this State matter has national immplications. It's like pollution. You can't let Massachusetts do whatever it pleases as their pollution spreads to neighboring states. That's what happened here.

Not in my party's primary. Party voting is not guaranteed in the Constitution. The framers didn't even anticipate such a thing as parties. And screwing up someone's party with a sabotage vote is not speech. It's an action and a destructive one at that.

 

Fair enough. Then your party should pay for it's own elections, rather than asking us non party affiliated taxpayers to foot the bill.

 

Because it benefits liberals. As does motor voter laws, same day registration, anonymous voting, and the other corrupt and fraudulent practices of Democrats.

 

You're right. Making voting easier and more available to all citizens does tend to favor the Democratic Party. That is why the Republican Party makes every effort to restrict access to the right to vote.

 

Of course one of the key words there is citizen. Motor voter laws and same day registration benefit the foreign nationals voting for Democrats. And, voting isn't supposed to be available to all citizens, is it? A citizen who is 12-years old can't vote except for Democrats. Dead citizens can't vote except for Democrats. When my father was in a nursing home with Alzheimer's, Democrats would arrive every election with already completed absentee ballots and try to coerce him into signing at least one. And who does anonymous voting benefit? Or, right. The crooks who vote repeatedly, vote for dead people, or are otherwise committing a crime known as Democrats. And felons convicted of rape, murder, incest, sexual assault against children are banned from voting in many states and that clearly costs the Democrats votes. Of course, you want them voting from prison because they're still Democrat citizens.

Democrats have no sense of responsibility so they have no sense of shame.

 

Only problem with your fantasy is that non-citizens are not allowed to register to vote.

 

There should not be, under any circumstances, a "national movement" to "fix" this!!!

Primary elections have absolutely nothing to do with the federal constitution. In fact, political parties are not even address in the constitution!!!

If you truly want to "fix" the system, push for the repeal of the 17th Amendment!!! Get us back to the basic system established by the founders,

The ONLY members of Congress who should be elected by popular vote are the Representatives! Period.

 

Would you find that fair? Because I do.

Someone else posted that they (I assume relative conservative) voted Barrack only to undermine Hillary. Oops!

That is an interesting idea. Does this, on balance, favor liberals? I have a lot of radical leftists in my extended family. They tear their hair out as they believe the Democratic party way too centrist. Open primaries may aid in that too.

I think open primaries may favor "Centrists". The problem is as someone else stated, anyone not proactively Conservative is a leftist. So, to aid Centrists... The Republicans that offer to drive the national state off a cliff doing 90 MPH opposed to the Democrats driving at 100 MPH?

 

It is actually a felony under federal law to vote in both primaries. That law will of course not be enforced, because black people are permanent victims

 

Of course I do. If you want a closed, private election, then hold the election yourself and pay for it with Party funds.

 

No Democrats crossed party lines in 2008, because there was a hotly contested Democratic primary.
There were Republicans crossing party lines, after McCain had locked up the nomination, voting for Obama, because America would never elect a black man president.......

 

I like the 17th Amendment. It helped break the railroad monopoly that ran California.
I'd rather repeal the 14th Amendment given a choice. Too broad. Passed under duress.


Yes, I have wondered why taxpayers are supporting any "party" primaries.
Political Parties are private organizations, not government,
and should hold their primaries, - - privately.
Privately funded. Privately managed. Not even a Government Elections Inspector.


Moi
fontification helps me write more clarified


r > g

No ​

 

I have my doubts that it could have happened as soon as it did, had it not been for the spectacular failure that resulted from 8 years of governance by his predecessor.

 

Right, in 2008 the Democrats had the luxury to select between a woman and a black man, knowing that the winner would be president.
So horrendous were the results the Bush administration were handing off....

 

Funny I thought the Tea Party was all about states rights. Or is that only when it benefits white christians??

 

It is my contention that if they decline to become a democrat or a republican, there may be natural consequences when it comes time for Democrats and the republicans to pick their standard bearers consistent with the values and interests of the members of the party. Whether a party sees enough benefit to being inclusive of outside voices is a call for the party to make. Being commitment-shy can have drawbacks in life.

 

Yep... You gotta fall for something, or you'll stand for anything.

 

Moi is right about parties being private organizations. But then, the Federal Reserve Bank is private too. Certain private institutions are tools of democracy. Without parties, it would too hard for individuals to mount credible national campaigns, except for a few rich celebrities, and I don't want Brad Pitt as President. Parties are there to make choices among candidates. Voters make the final choice among two or a few. Parties do all the winnowing to get to those two or few candidates. How else would candidates emerge?

The 14th Amendment set policy in the aftermath of the Civil War. Most of it has become irrelevant with the passage of time. It does guarantee the sanctity of citizenship, representation, and the public debt, which is all to the good.

The 17th Amendment deals with the replacement of vacancies in the Senate, as well as the direct popular election of Senators. Arguably, this removes much corruption, bribery, influence peddling, etc., from the selection of Senators, and ensures that vacancies will be filled, rather than party splits in the state Legislatures resulting in prolonged vacancies. Not a bad idea. Of course, some argue that insulating Senators from direct accountability to the public allowed them, like Supreme Court judges, to be above temporary popular fads. There's some merit to that position, though I think the drift of US history has been toward an ever stronger voice for the people.