Support NeoGAF

[Maxim726X]

Can someone explain to me why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible. The last thing we need are fair-weather voters deciding the direction of the party.

This is my take on it as well.

Why should someone else decide who is going to be the representative of my party? It's not my fault that the independent party isn't viable in this country, but that's the way it is.

 

[ZealousD]

Why don't you cite some examples? You can't? Oh.

The fact that we have to "imagine" this world, because it hasn't happened, says a lot

Such incredible cognitive dissonance on display. The whole reason for the superdelegates to exist is for party leaders to overturn the will of the pledged delegates if they deem it necessary.

It's not ridiculous to suggest that at some point they might actually use that power.

 

[KRod-57]

What about caucuses, Bernie?

That's determined at the state level, not the party level.

 

[The Technomancer]

Give me one reason why the Democratic Party should not be as progressive as social democrat parties in Europe.

There are democratic politicians from districts that aren't as liberal as social democrat parties in Europe

 

[QuantumZebra]

This all seems reasonable.

Why won't the democratic party implement these changes?

Well mainly because its not reasonable at all.

Also - Bernie - you lost, dude. Sour grapes ain't doing shit but making you like even more of a sore loser. Hillary had the keys to the kingdom in 2008 before Barry showed up, she got over it - you will too.

 

[KRod-57]

1) Not happening
2) Up to the states
3) Not happening
4) Already exists

Not necessarily, here in California the Democrats allow people who are not registered to their party to vote in their primaries, while the Republicans do not. If the Democrats wanted to, they could open up their primaries in every state

 

[Grover Cleveland]

Secondly adding that if you jump through many hoops and lightning strikes that you might someday maybe have enough power to make a real difference illustrates a rather crappy political system.

It's not jumping through hoops nor does it require lightning strikes.

The only magical power the Tea Party wields is the fact that they have people that vote for them reliably.

That's fundamentally what this really comes down to. If you absolutely believe that Democrats are married to the idea of winning even over "progress", then showing them that they can't win without you is how you get your foot in the door.

The problem is that people would rather sit on their ass for 4 years and then complain that the system is broken without even trying to work with that system.

Bernie's revolution dies with him if those 44% of Democrats that voted for him can't be plussed to vote in the fall. Or for the "less important" (in quotation marks, because the more localized you go, the more power the elected positions have over YOUR personal life. Your local county commissioner or city manager probably impacts YOUR day-to-day more than the President of the United States of America) elections at the city, county, state, and Congressional levels.

 

[NullPointer]

He represents a significant number of Democratic voters and he's lobbying for changes to the DNC, making public statements before sitting down to negotiate and discuss. He's in a position to seek reform and he's laying out his wants.

But hey, lets make it sound like he's taking the party hostage and demanding reforms or else, or else something.

Again, I don't see why Bernie news is always seen in the worst possible light.

 

[KingK]

There are democratic politicians from districts that aren't as liberal as social democrat parties in Europe

Well those districts will never become more progressive if we don't even try to have the debate. You need to actually propose, argue, and fight for an idea if you ever want it to happen. Not just sit around saying "well maybe one day things will be different..." Nothing wrong with incremental pragmatism; accomplish the best you can with what you have. But that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean you just give up on pushing for ideals or proposals that aren't immediately politically feasible. You fight to make it feasible.

 

[davepoobond]

He represents a significant number of Democratic voters and he's lobbying for changes to the DNC, making public statements before sitting down to negotiate and discuss. He's in a position to seek reform and he's laying out his wants.

But hey, lets make it sound like he's taking the party hostage and demanding reforms or else, or else something.

Again, I don't see why Bernie news is always seen in the worst possible light.

I dont personally mind him making these suggestions.

he just loses all credibility in this argument when he doesnt include caucuses, which directly benefited him. who is he trying to fool?

 

[dramatis]

Not necessarily, here in California the Democrats allow people who are not registered to their party to vote in their primaries, while the Republicans do not. If the Democrats wanted to, they could open up their primaries in every state

That's exactly what "up to the states" means...

Process is different from state to state. A lot of people advocating for blanket open primaries don't take into consideration imbalances in party registrations. For instance in New York, there are twice as many registered Democrats as there are registered Republicans. So an open primary in NY could have the potential to be very unfair to the Republicans if Democrats have a settled candidate and decide to spoil the Republican election.

It's easy to make "one size fits all" but not so easy to tailor it for local situations.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Caucuses are undemocratic in that they impose a cost that rewards high-passion supporters (or supporters who feel their passion is worth paying the price of suffering through the caucus). Now, general election voting also does this--people who don't bother voting are not 100% indifferent, they're just indifferent to the extent that the cost outweighs the value to them. You could reform them by making them less costly (by making caucus day a holiday).

Closed primaries are undemocratic in that they impose a cost for independence from the party, regardless of how invested you are in the outcome.

So while the two are both undemocratic in an absolute sense, but the people they punish differentially differ. So it's not "hypocritical" to focus on criticizing one or the other, it's just a case of different priorities (and you could easily argue wrong or stupid priorities)

My wife is disabled. She can only vote by mail. Caucuses 100% disenfranchise her. Closed primaries do not. She would not have been able to vote in Texas is it was a caucus.

I really do think that they different by are orders of magnitude and it's absolutely hypocritical to attack closed primaries while defending caucuses. Caucuses are for the privileged.

 

[metalslimer]

The fact that he didn't include caucuses is hilarious.

 

[NullPointer]

he just loses all credibility in this argument when he doesnt include caucuses, which directly benefited him. who is he trying to fool?

I think that's a great point, and he can and should be held to task on it.

 

[Vanillalite]

Can someone explain to me why closed primaries are a bad thing?

We're not talking about the process for electing candidates into office, we're talking about the process for a party to choose its representative. Limiting voters to members of said party seems sensible. The last thing we need are fair-weather voters deciding the direction of the party.

I'm fundamentally against closed primaries if they used existing PUBLIC setups.

Like where I vote they use the existing electorial setup. They use the places. They use the same voting booths. They use the same election officials.

I'm fine with closed primaries run by both the RNC and DNC, but they need to be internally funded and setup.

This goes for 3rd parties as well.

If you want to run a closed primary that's fine. It needs to be entirely self setup though.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm fundamentally against closed primaries if they used existing PUBLIC setups.

Like where I vote they use the existing electorial setup. They use the places. They use the same voting booths. They use the same election officials.

I'm fine with closed primaries run by both the RNC and DNC, but they need to be internally funded and setup.

This goes for 3rd parties as well.

If you want to run a closed primary that's fine. It needs to be entirely self setup though.

That creates a huge burden on 3rd parties. It would make it even harder for 3rd parties to have an effect on American Government (if such a thing is even possible).

 

[Stumpokapow]

My wife is disabled. She can only vote by mail. Caucuses 100% disenfranchise her. Closed primaries do not. She would not have been able to vote in Texas is it was a caucus.

I don't know that it's super productive to get into an increasingly personal debate about the specific nature of access. I will only say that I agree that access to voting is important for everyone and that the ideal policy around voting as fully accommodates as wide a variety of disabilities and situations as possible. In my home country, which the posters in this thread compelled me to disclose was not America, general elections include not only vote by mail but also mobile polling stations that exist to serve the immobilized in hospitals and long-term care facilities and that's something I strongly agree with. To the extent that disability imposes a cost on voting, we should act to lower that cost in any way possible.

Disability also imposes a strong cost oh voter registration and party registration in a country where many states process voter registration primarily through the DMV or through private interest groups running registration drives. This is not a closed/open primary distinction, I am simply observing that even mail-in ballot primaries are insufficient if not accompanied with mail-in registration and registration changes.

I really do think that they different by are orders of magnitude and it's absolutely hypocritical to attack closed primaries while defending caucuses. Caucuses are for the privileged.

The word you're looking for is not hypocritical, it's self-serving. Or transparent or cynical or unprincipled or selfish or... Bernie like most Democrats wants to extend access to the political process, and within the range of available options he focuses on the one that serves him best--the one that mostly helps young independents--rather than the one that mostly helps your wife (or alternatively, numerically more people) the best.

I think the need to paint Bernie as a hypocrite is driven by a broader need to view people as simply black or white, and thus apply as many possible pejoratives to someone who has been lumped into the "bad guy" category irrespective of whether the pejorative fits.

It would be hypocritical if Bernie had a public position that caucuses were bad and should be eliminated but then pushed not to eliminate them. Or if his position was that universal access is imperative but caucuses should stay unreformed. But the position that access should be expanded and a focus on some priorities that don't include caucuses is not hypocritical because there's no contradiction, just an omission.

 

[Suikoguy]

The fact that he didn't include caucuses is hilarious.

It would have lent some serious credibility to his demands.

 

[Vanillalite]

That creates a huge burden on 3rd parties. It would make it even harder for 3rd parties to have an effect on American Government (if such a thing is even possible).

Again you can use the public setup so long as it's OPEN.

It only creates a huge burden on 3rd parties if they want their primary to be CLOSED.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't know that it's super productive to get into an increasingly personal debate about the specific nature of access. I will only say that I agree that access to voting is important for everyone and that the ideal policy around voting as fully accommodates as wide a variety of disabilities and situations as possible. In my home country, which the posters in this thread compelled me to disclose was not America, general elections include not only vote by mail but also mobile polling stations that exist to serve the immobilized in hospitals and long-term care facilities and that's something I strongly agree with. To the extent that disability imposes a cost on voting, we should act to lower that cost in any way possible.

Disability also imposes a strong cost oh voter registration and party registration in a country where many states process voter registration primarily through the DMV or through private interest groups running registration drives. This is not a closed/open primary distinction, I am simply observing that even mail-in ballot primaries are insufficient if not accompanied with mail-in registration and registration changes.



The word you're looking for is not hypocritical, it's self-serving. Or transparent or cynical or unprincipled or selfish or... Bernie like most Democrats wants to extend access to the political process, and within the range of available options he focuses on the one that serves him best--the one that mostly helps young independents--rather than the one that mostly helps your wife (or alternatively, numerically more people) the best.

I think the need to paint Bernie as a hypocrite is driven by a broader need to view people as simply black or white, and thus apply as many possible pejoratives to someone who has been lumped into the "bad guy" category irrespective of whether the pejorative fits.

It would be hypocritical if Bernie had a public position that caucuses were bad and should be eliminated but then pushed not to eliminate them. Or if his position was that universal access is imperative but caucuses should stay unreformed. But the position that access should be expanded and a focus on some priorities that don't include caucuses is not hypocritical because there's no contradiction, just an omission.

I think all disenfranchisement is personal. That's the nature of access. If you don't want to engage in that, that's perfectly fine, but I will continue to speak for the rights of my wife and the millions of Americans who are in similar situations.

Registration can and should be improved. You will find no disagreements from me on that point.

I do think that it's hypocritical because the heart of Sanders' closed primary argument is about access, yet he supports a model of election that drastically limits access. Sander's Superdelegate argument is that every voter should have the same effect on the outcome, yet he supports a model that inherently increases the effect certain people have on the process.

I make games and a really good lesson that I picked up is that accessibility features make software better. Increasing accessibility helps all users, not just those that you would assume would benefit from it. I think the same principle is true here. The fact that Caucuses fail so spectacularly at serving people with disabilities is a very good indicator that they are incredibly efficient at serving anyone.

 

[megalowho]

The fact that he didn't include caucuses is hilarious.

Yes, comes across as an incredibly self serving lens towards reform if you bemoan closed primaries and superdelegates for being undemocratic and say nothing of the caucuses you benefited from as a candidate.

 

[Ashes]

I demand 10 billion dollars

Lol.

 

[soundahfekz]

tl;dr version

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-reform-224328

1. Go away
2. Go away
3. Go away
4. Go away

 

[excelsiorlef]

Such incredible cognitive dissonance on display. The whole reason for the superdelegates to exist is for party leaders to overturn the will of the pledged delegates if they deem it necessary.

It's not ridiculous to suggest that at some point they might actually use that power.

That's functionally not what they're for. They're there to ensure a smooth convention in the case of a multi person race resulting in one person only having a plurality lead going into the convention. They're use is to bump up the winner and avoid brokered convention shenanigans.

 

[Kite]

Hold on, rereading Bernie's demands.. he has one final chance to publicly demand some big changes to the Democratic platform and the three of the four things he came up with aren't about the 99% but.. personal grudges and silly party structure changes that aren't consistant (nothing about caucasus lol?). And #4 is very non-specific. The guy is so swept up in the campaign that he lost his overall message.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

Bernie's great qualities:

1. Temper tantrums.
2. Entitlement.
3. Paranoid conspiracist.
4. Willing to squander everything his supporters have provided him to the bitter end.
5. Dreamer that wants to fix everything that's clearly wrong, but is continuously unable to figure anything out beyond the "That's a great idea!" phase.
6. Hopelessly hypocritical.
7. Management skills of a party college dropout.

Pretty sure Bernie Sanders is the oldest millennial walking the earth. The alpha millennial to his support base.

And those demands are just a bunch of incoherent nonsense that seem to be more about him holding a grudge for losing than anything... Can't believe I was going to vote for this guy.Just shut up already.

 

[Armaros]

Pragmatism is just another ideology. Even more dangerous because it pretends to be unbiased.

Only said by people who actually don't want to govern and just want to preach.

 

[shoplifter]

This is my take on it as well.

Why should someone else decide who is going to be the representative of my party? It's not my fault that the independent party isn't viable in this country, but that's the way it is.

Their tax dollars fund your primary. Either open them or the party can fund their own primaries from the ground up.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I didn't read all of the replies, but there is also another function of SuperDelegates.

Courting Supers requires that you have support within the party. You have to build support and coalitions. Because the President is not an island, s/he cannot just pass an agenda through sheer force of will. This person is running to lead the party. Getting support of, you know, the elected officials who make up the party isn't that shocking of an idea. (And, yes, I know they're not all elected officials, but these are still typically the movers and shakers in the party.)

A President who has zero support among Congresspeople and Senators is completely useless if they can't get their agenda passed. And the opposite is true too. Maybe the Presidential candidate is wrong on something and the position of his/her colleagues is better in line with constituents and political reality.

This was part of the problem with Carter's presidency, right, that because of his outsider status he wasn't really an effective party leader?

 

[Slayven]

This was part of the problem with Carter's presidency, right, that because of his outsider status he wasn't really an effective party leader?

That and being History's greatest monster

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Their tax dollars fund your primary. Either open them or the party can fund their own primaries from the ground up.

Everyone is free to vote in whatever primary they want. Nothing is stopping you.

 

[AxelFoley]

Bernie needs to fuck right on off.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

That and being History's greatest monster

He must be prosecuted for his peace crimes!

 

[Vanillalite]

Everyone is free to vote in whatever primary they want. Nothing is stopping you.

Actually while true you can sign up before hand to vote in either the idea that you have to ahead of time does mean something at some point is stopping you.

I'm fundamentally against the idea of needing to declare before the voting day as soon as tax payers flip any part of the bill.

That's not to say I'm against closed primaries. They just have to be fully self funded.

It's worth noting in my state of GA you don't have to declare until you go in to get your ballot.

Again none of this is a hindrance to 3rd parties either so long as they stay open.

 

[TarNaru33]

Bernie Sanders is weak on gun control, so

Anyone who says this don't know what they are talking about. Neither candidate is more stronger on gun control, the difference is one candidate wants to make gun manufacturers liable for gun owner's crime. As someone that wants an almost full on ban of guns in U.S, this makes no sense to me.

Way too much blind hate on GAF, seems like it is going on Republican territory with this defending of the party bullshit.

 

[Clefargle]

1. New DNC chair
2. no more closed primaries
3. No more superdelegates
4. Progressive platform

1. I'm ok with it in principle, I think party leaders should represent the constituency and popular opinion to a point and there seems to be more than just Bernie stans that have taken issue with Debbie. I don't know exactly what the issue is with her since I've heard a million different ones but I'm ok with replacing party leadership.

2. Again, I agree is theory as long as we are talking about open to independents and NOT registered republicans too. But wouldn't this have to come from each state organization and not from the DNC? I don't get how they are supposed to deliver this one. Maybe a pledge? I dunno but caucuses need to go too.

3. I don't think Superdelegates are a big factor either way. So I'm ok with this one too. Or maybe make the supers ONLY sitting elected representatives if you want to make it more democratic. I don't care if this looks bad or is a moral victory for Sanders because I haven't seen the Supers change shit before.

4. Ok cool, that's an incredibly vague and subjective demand but yeah. Within reason I could accept a more progressive platform as long as it is also pragmatic and doesn't become a fucking witch hunt.

 

[Foffy]

His first demand should be the demands of anybody in the Democratic Party.

Forget the rest.

 

[Boney]

You already lost senile old man! Why do you want perfectly reasonable changes a lot of people want that screws up party militants and escalating career paths!

i mean pshh who wants a better democratic system. Not me I tell you. But if hillgawd wants to remove caucuses that makes those Bernie bros go apeshit and actually hit women and harass reporters I'd be ok with that.

 

[BanGy.nz]

His first demand should be the demands of anybody in the Democratic Party.

Forget the rest.

Why? Her term is up next year anyway.

 

[Gruco]

Yes the real pathology of American politics isn't ahistoricism, myopia, anti-compartivism, and American exceptionalism, it's dreamers who want America to have policies every other OECD country has.

Comparative history, public policy, and political science are the best way to understand these discussions. This does not mean that you copy another country, it means that you reflect on issues through the lens of experiences across history and contemporary cases. If you want to tell non-Americans to keep their nose out of your business, fine, but don't pretend you're actually interested in improving your institutions or your quality of life.

The truth is that among developed countries America is one of those that most suffers from political myopia and exceptionalism. Some of this comes from pre-independent political culture in the colonies, some from the framers, some from westward expansion, some from America's post-20th century military and economic power, and some understandably because of American institutional exceptionalism. This is a pathological problem in political discussions, where what people see as possible or desirable are coming mostly from gut checks and reactions to whatever they heard happened yesterday rather than a reasoned analysis of what people have tried and what we've learned from it. Mandatory minimums, gun culture, partisan control of elections and redistricting, OECD-worst access to healthcare, and unlimited money in politics are some of the many policies the Democratic party is against but about which public debates are derailed due to unwillingness to look abroad or through history for answers. It's hilarious and ironic that American institutional design and federalism gave birth to what Brandeis characterized as "laboratories of democracy" between the states, implying that what's great about America is a willingness to learn from successes and failures, when precisely the opposite happens so often.

My original post, which identified political myopia as a problem in America, in response to someone saying they were sick of people saying what America should do [by referencing other countries] because context means things can't compared? Or my original post where I responded to someone saying they don't give a shit about how other countries work

So, I am sorry to be jumping in here with a bazillion quotes, but I am late to the discussion and all of these really jumped out at me. I think your diagnosis of the problems in American politics is unhelpful in understanding why American political outcomes are often very different than other OECD countries.

That is, assuming I am interpreting your diagnosis as you meant it, which I may not be.

Reading the above, it sounds like you think the problem is that Americans suffer from a failure in imagination, and if Americans could just be less myopic, they'd learn more about what the rest of the world has accomplished and have better heath care, fewer guns, etc. I'm not sure whether you are attributing this failure to the american left, right, or both, but for the sake of what I'm trying to say here I don't think it really matters. Many of the biggest problems are institutional. So having a discussion about myopia makes it sound like Americans just aren't trying hard enough or thinking clearly. Without discussing the 200 year old systemic constraints and how they make reform more difficult in the US compared to a parliamentary system, the points you're making frankly trivialize the challenges faced by thoughtful, reform-minded Americans.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Not necessarily, here in California the Democrats allow people who are not registered to their party to vote in their primaries, while the Republicans do not. If the Democrats wanted to, they could open up their primaries in every state

This is a direct result of state law. The parties are allowed to choose to have closed primaries or allow decline to state voters participate, by state law.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

This was part of the problem with Carter's presidency, right, that because of his outsider status he wasn't really an effective party leader?

Yeah, it was a problem he had for sure. A lot of Dems didn't back him on stuff along with the opposition, so he ended up being a huge lame duck.

Anyone who says this don't know what they are talking about. Neither candidate is more stronger on gun control, the difference is one candidate wants to make gun manufacturers liable for gun owner's crime. As someone that wants an almost full on ban of guns in U.S, this makes no sense to me.

Way too much blind hate on GAF, seems like it is going on Republican territory with this defending of the party bullshit.

A big reason that we have such safety features in our vehicles is because people could sue car manufacturers for not doing enough to protect their customers. Today, we have technology like biometrics and other safety designs for firearms, and if a manufacturer chooses not to use them, they can avoid any consequence for that.

Sanders is 100% wrong on this one. I get that he's representing a super rural state (which is also why he backed a ton of military pork headed to VT), but he needs to get off his high horse if he thinks that his wide protection of the firearm industry (which is the only industry other than vaccine makers to have such blanket immunity) is progressive.

 

[nomster]

Would've had a lot more credibility if he left the Debbie attack out. Makes it personal.

 

[plagiarize]

He represents a significant number of Democratic voters and he's lobbying for changes to the DNC, making public statements before sitting down to negotiate and discuss. He's in a position to seek reform and he's laying out his wants.

But hey, lets make it sound like he's taking the party hostage and demanding reforms or else, or else something.

Again, I don't see why Bernie news is always seen in the worst possible light.

I think we're just sick of him at this point mainly. Why are we still hearing about this person making demands when he has absolutely lost by just about every metric? Imagine the hate Clinton would have received if she'd done this eight years ago.

We just want the primaries to be over already. We have a nominee by anything but an insane standard. Bernie is just trying to feel like he's won something so he doesn't have to feel like a loser.

I'm not going to hate him for that.

But it doesn't mean I think he deserves anything more than respect for doing way better than most of us thought he would.

 

[Suikoguy]

Would've had a lot more credibility if he left the Debbie attack out. Makes it personal.

Yeah, or at least include some reasoning. But thus far it's just been "she is biased".
From what i've read there are some good reasons to toss her, but as mentioned previously, her term is up before the next midterm election.

 

[royalan]

Their tax dollars fund your primary. Either open them or the party can fund their own primaries from the ground up.

Our tax dollars fund a lot of services I can't make use of. They should stay closed.

 

[NullPointer]

A big reason that we have such safety features in our vehicles is because people could sue car manufacturers for not doing enough to protect their customers. Today, we have technology like biometrics and other safety designs for firearms, and if a manufacturer chooses not to use them, they can avoid any consequence for that.

That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't step one involve establishing requirements for biometric and other safety mechanism on firearms and an enforcement scheme? Once those are in place I could absolutely understand holding gun manufacturers or sellers accountable.

In lieu of that I don't see how one can argue the manufacturers are liable for the use of their products.

 

[akira28]

It's actually crazy that people are rejecting this just because Bernie proposed it. Why would people be against a more democratic system?

Because Bernie Simpson is a no good rat fink.



(none of his requests are unreasonable and the DNC has something to gain from compromising with him at this stage since they've won. but he's a stinky loser and just bitter and salty or something. Lets not make any moves to pull back the unhappy left factions, lets just remind everyone how their guy lost and our girl won. )

 

[plagiarize]

That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't step one involve establishing requirements for biometric and other safety mechanism on firearms and an enforcement scheme? Once those are in place I could absolutely understand holding gun manufacturers or sellers accountable.

In lieu of that I don't see how one can argue the manufacturers are liable for the use of their products.

You're missing the point.

We have given gun owners a special protection no one else that makes something which people could use to kill with get. Car manufacturers don't get these protections. Knife manufacturers don't.

Yes, most lawsuits would be frivolous and would go nowhere. But why are we protecting one specific type of multi million dollar manufacturer from such lawsuits and not all the others? Part of being a multi million dollar company is that people will file such lawsuits against you. It's one of the costs of being hugely successful.

I don't see why the companies that are literally profiting from the massacre on Sunday right now should get a special pass.

 

[NullPointer]

We have given gun owners a special protection no one else that makes something which people could use to kill with get. Car manufacturers don't get these protections. Knife manufacturers don't.

Car manufacturers could be sued before there were any regulations for them to follow? Knife manufacturers too? By what standard were they being held to?

Edit: This tangent is completely a thread derail so I'll drop it, but if you have a link handy that explains it I'd be happy to check it out.