Do You Like Open Primaries or Think They Are Bad for Elections?
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
21% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
52% | ||
|
8 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
3% | ||
With seventeen states holding open primaries and a number of others holding semi-open primaries that means that the candidate who is elected for a party may not have even been chosen by party members primarily.
Is this a good or bad idea?
See this link for the list of states and what kind of primaries that they hold.
Open primaries (or pick-a-party) are those in which voters of any affiliation may vote for the slate of any party.
Closed primaries are those in which only the voters affiliated with a party may vote in its primary.
And for example on Tuesday, -
http://www.nomblog.com/17851/
Is this a good or bad idea?
See this link for the list of states and what kind of primaries that they hold.
Open primaries (or pick-a-party) are those in which voters of any affiliation may vote for the slate of any party.
Closed primaries are those in which only the voters affiliated with a party may vote in its primary.
And for example on Tuesday, -
Actual Republicans Represented Less than 50% of New Hampshire Primary Voters
http://www.nomblog.com/17851/
Read More: http://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-state...
Top Opinion
-
STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL 2012/01/12 03:47:38I don't like open primaries because
+7I think open primaries are a bad idea. Trolls from opposition parties could prop up someone unlikely to win the genreal election. Primaries should be limited to voters registered in the applicable party.
I think that campaigning should be for a six month period prior to an open primary...and by open primary I mean OPEN...every candidate for EVERY party runs their campaign EVERYWHERE..the debates still are debates amoungst party candidates. In mid-May EVERY voter votes in ONE primary election. Every voter is considered an independent and has the opportunity to vote for the candidate they wish to support, with total disregard for party affiliation... instead of having to pick sides. The top two candidates from two different parties with the most votes are declared the 'candidates' that will run for the presidency. If it is a Democrat and Green party candidate, or a Republican and a Progressive candidate then so be it...that is obviously the CHOICE people want.
I believe that this system we use now only benefits the FIGHT...the separation of the populous and instigates conspiracy by limiting the field. It invites a 'third party' candidate to run, thus creating an environment whereby a person can become president with less than 50% of the vote.
This needs to be eliminated by giving EVERYBODY the chance to vote for THEIR candidate in the primaries...regardless of party line. Right now the system is being ...
I think that campaigning should be for a six month period prior to an open primary...and by open primary I mean OPEN...every candidate for EVERY party runs their campaign EVERYWHERE..the debates still are debates amoungst party candidates. In mid-May EVERY voter votes in ONE primary election. Every voter is considered an independent and has the opportunity to vote for the candidate they wish to support, with total disregard for party affiliation... instead of having to pick sides. The top two candidates from two different parties with the most votes are declared the 'candidates' that will run for the presidency. If it is a Democrat and Green party candidate, or a Republican and a Progressive candidate then so be it...that is obviously the CHOICE people want.
I believe that this system we use now only benefits the FIGHT...the separation of the populous and instigates conspiracy by limiting the field. It invites a 'third party' candidate to run, thus creating an environment whereby a person can become president with less than 50% of the vote.
This needs to be eliminated by giving EVERYBODY the chance to vote for THEIR candidate in the primaries...regardless of party line. Right now the system is being played by the system..., the candidates and their supporters from both sides have figured out how to game the system, and it starting to appear that a handful of eastern states are choosing who our candidates will be.
EVERY citizen should have the opportunity to choose the candidates, and vote for the candidates based on their ideas and direction...not by party.
It is fair, ALL inclusive and efficient. Right now we have an archaic system where 5 relatively obscure states who's combined population is less than the population of CA, equal to the population of Texas, and only slightly more than the population of NY, are choosing for an entire nation who will be running for presidency. We are currently electing officials for basically a 2 yr. term...2 years of actual policy work, followed up with 2 years of campaigning...and this POTUS has taken that to an even further extreme...he never QUIT campaigning and that needs to end.
The unions require them to vote - but yet they push not needed them in political elections. It's sick
The Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina... sequence makes sense to me, since a candidate with moderate funding can get a foothold, and then garner more financial support for coming primaries. Whereas, if the primaries took place all at once, or in the same one week, or two week window, the campaign with the most money would win (since it could cover all of the states at once); as opposed to concentrating on one state at a time.
Letting voters outside of the party decide on the party's candidate just seems to be counter intuitive.
I stated why Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina going first was wise; which is kind of the same thing as not having popular vote decided the presidential election.
Open primaries are state by state, and only so many have them, so it is like whatever. I do not like it, since I think it lets non-members of a party vote for a party's nominee. To me, that makes zero sense. In primaries here, Pennsylvania, you vote within your party period. That leaves some new transplants here miffed, but too bad. If you are an independent (or some other party) what business do you have voting in a Republican or Democrat race? None, as far as I am concerned.