disenfranchises voters, antithetical to the democratic process
blatantly forces a two party system by disenfranchising independent and third party voters
encourages voting based on party affiliation rather than principle
heres the only reason its a good idea
discourages opponents from voting for a less favorable rival candidate (e.g. trump supporting republican voting hillary because she polls at sea bottom)
we aren't electing a president for the republicans and another president for the democrats
there's one president that represents everyone why should only some be able to decide who that is, especially when the overwhelming majority of the country is centrist and has no strong party bias
deletedover 8 years
Changing your party affiliation isnt really hard. but if u dont want to alienate any voters i guess throwing out closed primaries makes sense???
Terry's analogy is supposing that Protestant cardinals should not be the ones electing the Catholic Pope. He's comparing that to the example of allowing Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. There's no comparison between his analogy and yours, because all Americans are American and therefore can vote for President (if they're of age, that is).
at first i thought you were saying terry's analogy makes no sense (because it doesn't), but judging by formatting it seems you think his false analogy makes sense and my correcting it doesn't so here's simple terms
> protestants don't have a pope > "we should definitely let protestants choose who the pope is"
> americans do have a president > "we should definitely let americans choose who the american president is"
what's the difference between a republican flipping democrat to vote for hillary and a republican just voting hillary in an open primary? aside from burden to every other voter for the sake of this minority, that is.
again, one vote. if you want to vote for the opposing party, you sacrifice your vote for your own party. the only difference here is there's no pussyfooting around it.
i dont think the most powerful position in the free world should be chosen by disallowing people the right to vote.
The difference is that if a party chooses to have an open primary they're inviting people who do not necessarily line up with the party's views to come vote in it. This is where spoilers come from, people who vote for fringe candidates to try and hurt the other candidates from being elected as much as possible.
Now, if a party wants to have open primaries they absolutely should be allowed to, but political parties shouldn't be forced to do anything with how their candidates are chosen.
Candidates for the two major political parties have to announce their candidacy way before the primaries, a couple months before the debates if I recall correctly. If you don't educate yourself on a candidate's policies in advance then you're the problem.
You know that protestants don't have a Pope, right? Your analogy makes no sense on any level.
deletedover 8 years
No one should be registered to any party seriously what is the advantage of being registered to a party? I can see politicians doing it, but a voter should keep their mind open.
When I was in HS I registered Democrat, following the trope of Democrats want to help people and Republicans are greedy. This election makes me never want to vote Democrat again. Seeing how greedy and power hungry the Clintons are and how stupid her supporters are drove me away, and the whole Bernie Sanders movement of silencing anyone who doesn't agree with you makes me want him to disappear.
I don't think Trump would be awful, but we had better options than him in the party. This is what happens when you burn people too much though, they get pissed off and elect the person they think is going to tear down the system.
Some people yell at me for voting Libertarian. Why do either of the two main candidates deserve my vote? One is a fraud and the other is a loudmouth. Gary Johnson may be going up against a stacked deck, but by getting into a debate maybe he can change this system that gives us a choice between a Turd Sandwhich and DBag.
i think you fail to realize terry sees the world in black and white. either everything is wrong or nothing is wrong. "register before you even know who the candidates are? must be OK because I agree with everything else, so how could this in particular be a problem of its own?"
why not just make same day registration universal since you're just incredibly slowly edging towards it
what's the difference between this and an open primary besides unnecessary hassle? and if you think one person would be able to vote twice, think again - that's a silly idea that comes straight from a silly two party system. let people vote for anyone they want, like a democracy
Why should someone registered as, say, a Libertarian, be allowed to vote in the Republican primary?
Registration is the problem, not the open/closed primary. If registration dates were moved way up (say, making the deadline a week or two before the primary) that would be a much better solution.
ahh yes because we should definitely let protestants choose who the Pope is
the more i read your trail of thinking and your beliefs, the more i see you as a libturd
deletedover 8 years
The last day you could've switched parties in New York was around October, months before their actual primary. It's not just a Bernie supporters thing but the fact that it's largely unfair to certain people as Cub's topic information points out.
Closed primaries are hugely useful for voter fraud, and it's very easy to register to vote anyway, it's not like its Reconstruction era. I can see why you wouldn't want closed primaries but it's mostly a bunch of Bernie supporters whining.
deletedover 8 years
Closed primaries should just be a thing of the past.
