3 ms·

> Open primaries I don't get the idea of open primaries - why should someone who is not a member of a party get to vote on who the party wants to represent the

> Open primaries I don't get the idea of open primaries - why should someone who is not a member of a party get to vote on who the party wants to represent them? Imagine there was a Women's Equality Party party (there is in the UK.) Should a large number of men, with no interests in women's equality, be able to come along and tell the Women's Equality Party who will represent them in an election?

birken 4y ago
edit: was describing a jungle primary
- aidenn0 4y ago
  If that is what GP meant, then they used the wrong term. The term usually used is "Blanket Primary" or "Jungle Primary" (Jungle Primary is a specific type of blanket primary) for what you describe. An open primary allows people to vote regardless of party affiliation; the states which have these may not even ask you for party affiliation when you register to vote (Virginia, where I first voted does not, for example). It does make an aggregate difference because few people vote in primaries anyways, and even fewer will change their party affiliation every year, making raiding much harder.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  That's a California-style jungle primary, not an open primary, and it's very dubious that it promotes centrism.
  - bsder 4y ago
    The California jungle primaries destroyed almost all of the right wing wingnuts in California. That's practically centrist by tautology. However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism". See: Harris vs Sanchez for US Senate, for example. Now, whether "centrism" is a good thing is up for debate as history shows that the centrist position is almost always the wrong position over the long run.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The California jungle primaries destroyed almost all of the right wing wingnuts in California No, they didn't. > However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism". Almost invariably, the candidate thar had the most institutional support (usually, a more centrist one) in the primary wins the general in that case, same as they likely would have in the prior system where the institutional support would have won them the party nomination. The difference is that they campaign against another (usually more leftist) Democrat in the general.
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      California used to have actual moderate republicans. Yes even in the Bay Area. Over time those guys retired. The voters moved left a little. And the Republicans followed the national party moving way to the right. The result was the Republicans inability to field viable candidates against Democrats. The jungle primary was a response the loss of a viable opposition party. Got to say after Feinstein won against de Leon in 2018 I'm kinda done with hearing conservatives bitch about her.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > anybody can register for any party Presumably only if they'll have you? People often get ejected from political parties in the UK if they for some reason are being destructive (in someone's opinion.)
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Not in Alaska, anyone can assert any affiliation in our primary: "If a candidate is registered as affiliated with a political party or group, it does not imply the candidate is nominated by, endorsed by, approved of, or associated with that particular party or group."
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Presumably only if they'll have you? Not in the US. Primaries are just the method that political parties use to determine who they should run in the actual election. You do not ever need party affiliation to vote in the actual election, but some state primaries are run in a manner that require you to register with the party if you want to vote in their primary. Primaries are typically held months in advance of the actual election.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
aidenn0 4y ago
Given that parties don't restrict membership in the US, in places that are majority one party, you effectively get an open primary. I'm registered as $MAJORITY_PARTY_IN_MY_DISTRICT because the primary election is essentially the only one that matters.
derbOac 4y ago
I am someplace that has open primaries and nothing like you are concerned about transpires. The reason is that if you participate in one primary you lose the ability to participate in the other. In some sense the threat of each side doing it keeps people from doing it. Also you can't really in keep people from registering for a given party, so enforcing a non open primary isn't feasible in practice.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Alaska switched to a non-partisan top 4 RCV primary. This seems much more likely type of primary to actually benefit moderate candidates and voters. We've had moderate candidates get primaried and have to run and win write-in campaigns to stay in office. This means that reasonably popular moderate candidates will at least always get to run in the general election.
  - derbOac 4y ago
    RCV has been passing in referendums here, which is changing some of the primaries, but at a very local level.
cjsplat 4y ago
The point is that the party has no intrinsic right to a slot in the general election. The WEP can put whoever they wish up to represent them, selected however they wish, in a process funded by their party resources. Then the primary is a voting population wide decision to winnow the field to a reasonable final competition. A state funded primary that is locked to a party selection process is an interesting use of public funds.
silisili 4y ago
I can think of two reasons - 1 - Most voters are not a Republican or Democrat. So they're stuck choosing between what those at political extremes want at election time. 2 - Some cities/states will always vote R or D, pretty reliably. Choosing someone you dislike less has its advantages in such areas.
lkrubner 4y ago
The current iteration of primaries, and the government paying for them, got going in the USA during the 1960s. It was the start of the populist revolt, and part of the goal was to weaken the political parties. Progressive reformers were motivated by the outcomes of struggles such as Fanny Lou Hamer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer Civil Rights leaders wondered why ultra-racist white men got to represent the Democratic Party in Mississippi, when someone like Fanny Lou Hamer seemed to have broad based support in her district. Why were ultra-racist Democrats able to make a backroom deal and nominate some staunch segregationist, instead of allowing someone to stand for the Democrats, chosen democratically? The goal of the primaries was to weaken the political parties, which is why you might find them confusing. At the time, a number of scholars pointed out that weakening the parties would increase the influence of money, and also allow untested demagogues to step forward and become the leaders of the weakened parties. These concerns seem to have been borne out by events.
panick21_ 4y ago
In a voting system that is not insane a party doesn't get punished for running more then 1 person. So you could just have 3 people from the WEP run and then voters decide. If the party has enough power over its member to force only 1 candidate, then they can do that. However once parties get larger enforcing that is difficult and other people will just run.

birken 4y ago

edit: was describing a jungle primary

aidenn0 4y ago
If that is what GP meant, then they used the wrong term. The term usually used is "Blanket Primary" or "Jungle Primary" (Jungle Primary is a specific type of blanket primary) for what you describe. An open primary allows people to vote regardless of party affiliation; the states which have these may not even ask you for party affiliation when you register to vote (Virginia, where I first voted does not, for example). It does make an aggregate difference because few people vote in primaries anyways, and even fewer will change their party affiliation every year, making raiding much harder.
dragonwriter 4y ago
That's a California-style jungle primary, not an open primary, and it's very dubious that it promotes centrism.
- bsder 4y ago
  The California jungle primaries destroyed almost all of the right wing wingnuts in California. That's practically centrist by tautology. However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism". See: Harris vs Sanchez for US Senate, for example. Now, whether "centrism" is a good thing is up for debate as history shows that the centrist position is almost always the wrong position over the long run.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The California jungle primaries destroyed almost all of the right wing wingnuts in California No, they didn't. > However, the more interesting cases are actually where there have been two Democratic candidates, and, yes, much to my irritation, it really does seem to promote "centrism". Almost invariably, the candidate thar had the most institutional support (usually, a more centrist one) in the primary wins the general in that case, same as they likely would have in the prior system where the institutional support would have won them the party nomination. The difference is that they campaign against another (usually more leftist) Democrat in the general.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    California used to have actual moderate republicans. Yes even in the Bay Area. Over time those guys retired. The voters moved left a little. And the Republicans followed the national party moving way to the right. The result was the Republicans inability to field viable candidates against Democrats. The jungle primary was a response the loss of a viable opposition party. Got to say after Feinstein won against de Leon in 2018 I'm kinda done with hearing conservatives bitch about her.
chrisseaton 4y ago
> anybody can register for any party Presumably only if they'll have you? People often get ejected from political parties in the UK if they for some reason are being destructive (in someone's opinion.)
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Not in Alaska, anyone can assert any affiliation in our primary: "If a candidate is registered as affiliated with a political party or group, it does not imply the candidate is nominated by, endorsed by, approved of, or associated with that particular party or group."
- yucky 4y ago
  >Presumably only if they'll have you? Not in the US. Primaries are just the method that political parties use to determine who they should run in the actual election. You do not ever need party affiliation to vote in the actual election, but some state primaries are run in a manner that require you to register with the party if you want to vote in their primary. Primaries are typically held months in advance of the actual election.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

aidenn0 4y ago

Given that parties don't restrict membership in the US, in places that are majority one party, you effectively get an open primary. I'm registered as $MAJORITY_PARTY_IN_MY_DISTRICT because the primary election is essentially the only one that matters.

derbOac 4y ago

I am someplace that has open primaries and nothing like you are concerned about transpires. The reason is that if you participate in one primary you lose the ability to participate in the other. In some sense the threat of each side doing it keeps people from doing it. Also you can't really in keep people from registering for a given party, so enforcing a non open primary isn't feasible in practice.

shkkmo 4y ago
Alaska switched to a non-partisan top 4 RCV primary. This seems much more likely type of primary to actually benefit moderate candidates and voters. We've had moderate candidates get primaried and have to run and win write-in campaigns to stay in office. This means that reasonably popular moderate candidates will at least always get to run in the general election.
- derbOac 4y ago
  RCV has been passing in referendums here, which is changing some of the primaries, but at a very local level.

cjsplat 4y ago

The point is that the party has no intrinsic right to a slot in the general election. The WEP can put whoever they wish up to represent them, selected however they wish, in a process funded by their party resources. Then the primary is a voting population wide decision to winnow the field to a reasonable final competition. A state funded primary that is locked to a party selection process is an interesting use of public funds.

silisili 4y ago

I can think of two reasons - 1 - Most voters are not a Republican or Democrat. So they're stuck choosing between what those at political extremes want at election time. 2 - Some cities/states will always vote R or D, pretty reliably. Choosing someone you dislike less has its advantages in such areas.

lkrubner 4y ago

The current iteration of primaries, and the government paying for them, got going in the USA during the 1960s. It was the start of the populist revolt, and part of the goal was to weaken the political parties. Progressive reformers were motivated by the outcomes of struggles such as Fanny Lou Hamer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer Civil Rights leaders wondered why ultra-racist white men got to represent the Democratic Party in Mississippi, when someone like Fanny Lou Hamer seemed to have broad based support in her district. Why were ultra-racist Democrats able to make a backroom deal and nominate some staunch segregationist, instead of allowing someone to stand for the Democrats, chosen democratically? The goal of the primaries was to weaken the political parties, which is why you might find them confusing. At the time, a number of scholars pointed out that weakening the parties would increase the influence of money, and also allow untested demagogues to step forward and become the leaders of the weakened parties. These concerns seem to have been borne out by events.

panick21_ 4y ago

In a voting system that is not insane a party doesn't get punished for running more then 1 person. So you could just have 3 people from the WEP run and then voters decide. If the party has enough power over its member to force only 1 candidate, then they can do that. However once parties get larger enforcing that is difficult and other people will just run.