A drawback to open primaries

WickedLou9 · 03-20-2008, 03:56 PM

Can GOP Voters Spoil the Dem Race? - Yahoo! News

As if Democrats didn't have enough problems deciding upon their presidential nominee this year, now they must contend with the possibility that Republicans are deliberately crossing party lines to prolong the bitterly contested race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

This is just dishonest and low. Purposefully subverting the democratic process. Why do they hate america? Why do they hate freedom?

Thorgrim · 03-20-2008, 04:01 PM

The entire nomination should be a closed primary

no caucus shit to keep out elderly/working voters

no "indepedent/GOP" shit, it's our party

Publius · 03-20-2008, 04:11 PM

It's not like the Democrats haven't done the same thing this election cycle...

*youtube* Democrats try to get an effort to vote for Mitt in Michigan Primary

WickedLou9 · 03-20-2008, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

It's not like the Democrats haven't done the same thing this election cycle...

*youtube* Democrats try to get an effort to vote for Mitt in Michigan Primary

I don't care who is doing it, it should probably be illegal. It's election fraud. They should arrest everyone who does it and they should have closed primaries. Get rid of the antiquated caucus process, get rid of "super delegates" , get rid of open primaries.

Publius · 03-20-2008, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't care who is doing it, it should probably be illegal. It's election fraud. They should arrest everyone who does it and they should have closed primaries. Get rid of the antiquated caucus process, get rid of "super delegates" , get rid of open primaries.

I'm not saying it's okay, just pointing out that it isn't something the evil GOP thought up. The Democrats are just as happy to do it.

And as long as open primaries exist, it isn't election fraud nor illegal in any way.

Phantom · 03-20-2008, 04:23 PM

I don't see what the problem is ?

If someone wants to vote and the rules allow them to vote, let them vote as they please. If you don't like the rules, change them.

WickedLou9 · 03-20-2008, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I don't see what the problem is ?

If someone wants to vote and the rules allow them to vote, let them vote as they please. If you don't like the rules, change them.

The problem is that they are purposefully trying to subvert the will of the people. If for instance the people that belong to the democratic party wanted Candidate A, but some other people in the GOP decide they are going to throw a wrench into the works and try and shift the balance to some weaker candidate so that thier candidate has a better chance of winning... Isn't that distorting the purity of the electoral process? They are no longer allowing the will of the people to be heard. It's dirty politics. It's Dishonest.

Publius · 03-20-2008, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The problem is that they are purposefully trying to subvert the will of the people. If for instance the people that belong to the democratic party wanted Candidate A, but some other people in the GOP decide they are going to throw a wrench into the works and try and shift the balance to some weaker candidate so that thier candidate has a better chance of winning... Isn't that distorting the purity of the electoral process? They are no longer allowing the will of the people to be heard. It's dirty politics. It's Dishonest.

Which is exactly what the Democrats tried to do to the Republicans in Michigan, only it backfired because at this point even if they did have a re-vote in Michigan any Democrats that voted in the GOP primary would be unable to vote now for a Democratic candidate.

It's dirty politics, but perfectly legal and something members of both parties will happily do.

Phantom · 03-20-2008, 04:29 PM

Voting in primaries isn't really part of the electoral process though.

If a party wanted to skip primaries altogether and chose an inside guy amongst themselves for nomination, I don't think there would be any problem.

Your complaint should be with the party running the gig and making the rule, not the participants. Participants are generally going to do what they think is best for themselves.

David Octavius · 03-20-2008, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

...should probably be illegal. It's election fraud.

Illegal? Fraud? No, its part of the democratic system. In the general election, you want your candidate to win so you campaign for them and you get people to vote for them - activism. A primary is just more strategic, you still want your candidate to win and he already got the nomination, so you want to get out the vote for the person you think he stands the best chance against..its activism..sure its a bit slimy and I am not a fan of it but who said democracy is not a bit messy?

JaJae · 03-20-2008, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Illegal? Fraud? No, its part of the democratic system. In the general election, you want your candidate to win so you campaign for them and you get people to vote for them - activism. A primary is just more strategic, you still want your candidate to win and he already got the nomination, so you want to get out the vote for the person you think he stands the best chance against..its activism..sure its a bit slimy and I am not a fan of it but who said democracy is not a bit messy?

I agree with this. A county in Ohio is looking to prosecute conservatives changed party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary. I don't agree with this. Most of them voted for Hillary recently, but whatever.

WickedLou9 · 03-20-2008, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree with this. A county in Ohio is looking to prosecute conservatives changed party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary. I don't agree with this. Most of them voted for Hillary recently, but whatever.

To me that's fraud. It's no different than stuffing ballot boxes or getting dead people to vote. You are subverting the election process and trying to get your candidate to win by making other peoples vote count for less.

JaJae · 03-20-2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

To me that's fraud. It's no different than stuffing ballot boxes or getting dead people to vote. You are subverting the election process and trying to get your candidate to win by making other peoples vote count for less.

I disagree. They're following party rules. Why can't they join a party for one day and then join another the next? They can change the rules saying you have to be registered by such and such a date if they wanted to.

kinggovernor · 03-20-2008, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The entire nomination should be a closed primary

no caucus shit to keep out elderly/working voters

no "indepedent/GOP" shit, it's our party

I agree completely, it is pretty underhanded to vote in an opposite party just to fuck with them.

kinggovernor · 03-20-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

It's not like the Democrats haven't done the same thing this election cycle...

*youtube* Democrats try to get an effort to vote for Mitt in Michigan Primary

kinggovernor · 03-20-2008, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree with this. A county in Ohio is looking to prosecute conservatives changed party affiliation to vote in the Democratic primary. I don't agree with this. Most of them voted for Hillary recently, but whatever.

its not right, but I don't think it is criminal

JaJae · 03-20-2008, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its not right, but I don't think it is criminal

I agree. It's shady, dishonest, unethical, and wrong. But I don't think it should be a criminal offense. The party should take measures to prevent it if they don't want it happening.

TankRizzo · 03-21-2008, 12:59 PM

Hell, if the dems didn't proportionally share the delegates from each win, this all would have been over a long time ago.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Hell, if the dems didn't proportionally share the delegates from each win, this all would have been over a long time ago.

I don't know that, have you worked out the math on that...Hillary's wins in OH,TX,CA,AZ,NJ,NY...they had a lot of delegates

She'd have...about 1,000 delegates...Obama would have about 650...afer super tuesday, i dunno what would have happened then, I imagine Obama would have stayed in the race

He then would have won 450 and been ontop at 1100 vs 1000

At the end of this month, Obama would have 1150 to hillary's 1400

So...that really wouldn't have decided anything...even if you took out superdelegates, you'd need 1600 to win the democratic nominatio (2000 if you kept them in)

Either way, didn't solve anything

RMNIXON · 03-21-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't care who is doing it, it should probably be illegal. It's election fraud. They should arrest everyone who does it and they should have closed primaries. Get rid of the antiquated caucus process, get rid of "super delegates" , get rid of open primaries.

California Democrats think Open Primaries are a good idea!

I do not!