Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

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.

Here's the act. Notice it specifically names gun manufacturers.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others.

Why does it only prohibit these actions against gun companies and gun dealers? Why not anyone who makes something that could be used in a crime.

If the argument goes 'but these lawsuits are frivolous, why shouldn't we ban them?' then you have to answer why we only did it to protect people who sell guns.

 

[TarNaru33]

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.

Apples and oranges man, one is defective parts and regulated safety features and the other is a user specifically using what they bought for illegal activities. Nothing alike in any shape or form.

No he isn't "wrong" he is wrong only in your mind.

 

[Box]

Most of these should be fairly painless for the party to implement. I imagine many Hillary supporters want the total victory where Bernie gets nothing and is ostracized and humiliated for the rest of his career, but that's not really a good outcome. Trying to push Bernie supporters out of their coalition will only make the party weaker. The smart move is to make the appropriate compromise in order to ensure the party's, and more importantly, the platform's future.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I doubt they DNC will budge, but I wish him well.



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

Jeremy corbyn.

 

[Valhelm]

Jeremy corbyn.

Every strike against Jeremy Corbyn is because of his incompetence, not because of his ideology.

 

[Smokey_Run]

I wish I could lose at things and still make demands as though I just won.

He won't get any of them and there are Progressive members already in the Democratic party.

 

[Makai]

I would think most of the people making fun of Bernie here would like these changes!

 

[ApharmdX]

I would think most of the people making fun of Bernie here would like these changes!

They are too invested in being mad that he hasn't dropped out yet. Ask them again this time next year and you're right, most of them probably support the bulk of these changes.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I would think most of the people making fun of Bernie here would like these changes!

They are too invested in being mad that he hasn't dropped out yet. Ask them again this time next year and you're right, most of them probably support the bulk of these changes.

John Edwards is a pretty compelling argument for Superdelegates.

 

[Kite]

They are too invested in being mad that he hasn't dropped out yet. Ask them again this time next year and you're right, most of them probably support the bulk of these changes.

lol hardly, I only agree with #4 and it's so vague it's pretty much useless. I'm indifferent towards #1. I'm no fan, but her term is about to end so.. who cares? It's like if the Republicans tried to impeach Obama starting tomorrow.. lol what is the point when he is leaving in a few months? What a waste of time.

 

[royalan]

John Edwards is a pretty compelling argument for Superdelegates.

Ding ding ding.

But nope, Hillary supporters are just blindly mad. I mean, it's not like the DNC hasn't already granted Bernie Sanders unprecedented concessions never given to another candidate before. We couldn't possibly have genuine disagreements with the ways he wants to change the party or anything. Bernie's not being sad sack worthy of ridicule or anything. Nah, we just hatin'.

I mean, just allowing him to continue running after his campaign was caught stealing campaign data that didn't belong to them was an unprecedented concession.

 

[seat]

Oh right, I forgot we're supposed to pretend to love Debbie Wasserman Schultz when Bernie criticizes her, even though everyone agrees she should be replaced.

 

[B-Dubs]

Apples and oranges man, one is defective parts and regulated safety features and the other is a user specifically using what they bought for illegal activities. Nothing alike in any shape or form.

No he isn't "wrong" he is wrong only in your mind.

He also voted against background checks for handguns (the Brady Bill) 5 times in the 90's.

 

[shinra-bansho]

This would probably have more weight if she wasn't 160 odd pledged delegates under the total delegate nomination threshold.

Where DWS still hasn't endorsed Clinton.

And when he won most of his delegates from caucuses that have even more onerous restrictions.

And he didn't wait until she has won by basically every metric of note to try and exert control.

 

[akira28]

be right or be correct. but for fuck's sake do something, donald's looking over at this table...

 

[TarNaru33]

He also voted against background checks for handguns (the Brady Bill) 5 times in the 90's.

Now this is a fair point, though we can not say this is the same point of view he holds in 2016 with so many high profile mass shootings going on.

Overall he isn't weaker on guns in my view, since neither candidate will go far in gun control.

Anyways, Sanders have a more progressive view than the Democrats as a whole seem to be willing to go for, this is why I like him over all other candidates. Him trying to change the DNC is not a bad idea, knowing that it would take decades (probably an entire life time) to bring up a 3rd party to where it can compete than changing the Democratic party. Then there is the fact that a 3rd party could very much kill off liberals in U.S, when so much of the country is still conservative.

 

[Mr.Pig]

And I demand a turkey sandwich!

Your wish might come true.

 

[Koomaster]

Most of these should be fairly painless for the party to implement. I imagine many Hillary supporters want the total victory where Bernie gets nothing and is ostracized and humiliated for the rest of his career, but that's not really a good outcome. Trying to push Bernie supporters out of their coalition will only make the party weaker. The smart move is to make the appropriate compromise in order to ensure the party's, and more importantly, the platform's future.

Why not? Sounds like a great outcome to me. He's done nothing to deserve anything.

 

[boiled goose]

This all seems reasonable.

Why won't the democratic party implement these changes?

Look at the responses in the thread... people dont even agree with number1.

 

[Cheebo]

This all seems reasonable.

Why won't the democratic party implement these changes?

Because Bernie is no position to demand anything. He lost, badly.

 

[MThanded]

What happened to DC bruh bruh?

 

[Vanillalite]

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

This isn't about not making use so much as making use.

It isn't about you not being able to make use of voting in a closed primary.

You can't frame it the way you do unless the first act happens aka the DNC or RNC using public funds for private means aka running their primary.

Also my primary is open. So it can't "stay closed" as not every state is closed.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Look at the responses in the thread... people dont even agree with number1.

I have no issues with DWS being replaced, after Hillary wins in a landslide, so the BernieBots can't take credit.

 

[Neuromancer]

He's right about superdelegates. They're bullshit and the opposite of democracy.

 

[MThanded]

He's right about superdelegates. They're bullshit and the opposite of democracy.

Except when he thought he could use them to swing the election his way.

Right?

He lost badly without the superdelegates. Now I believe they do complicate and sully the process. However he isn't really in a good position to argue for that change if you look at the outcome of this years race.

Also get rid of caucuses too. We don't caucus for the general so why should caucuses be part of the primary process. He didn't say anything about that because he did well in caucuses. This is hypocritical.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

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

Long ramble of commentary I'm sure no one would read (and I wouldn't encourage anyone to read):

1. Sure? I mean her term is almost over anyway. This is a weird thing to make a demand about.

I do want to pushback a bit against the narrative that HillGAF started "liking" DWS the moment Bernie started throwing his temper tantrum. She's never been very popular in PoliGAF. The frustration was more when Bernie decided to support her primary opponent for a race that has nothing to do with her DNC chair - and a guy who considerably veers away from Bernie's politics! - solely out of spite. He's free to complain that he was treated unfairly by the DNC, but making it personal was just unwarranted - and I can have that opinion without having to actually defend her ineptitude at the position.

2. I'd be fine with no more closed primaries, but I'd prefer semi-open to open as the minimal. I'm not a fan of strategic voting.

That being said, while I think push-comes-to-shove I'd go with open instead of closed primaries, but there is a part of me incredibly frustrated with the left electorate that comes out to support their presidential candidate, but has no intention of sticking around to actually strengthen the party overall and be involved. One of the main weaknesses of the left is the vulnerability to hero worship for the presidency and ignoring local and state elections. People on the left want the Democratic party to be an ideological party, but that's never going to happen - it's always going to be a big tent party and if voters want to win, they need to be comfortable with compromise. Let's be honest - it's not like blue collars, Latinos, African Americans, and college liberals, to name a few, actually have identical political beliefs. It's always been about coalition building that requires compromising, even when you are 100% correct in your beliefs.

It's always easy to be ideological pure on your social media when you don't actually care about winning and making changes. I wish more people could swallow their pride and just try and change the party from within, rather than emphasizing their independence and taking their ball home every time a policy or decision is made that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.

Also, I am giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt that he's including in this demand the abolishment of caucuses. I know his hands have been tied from criticizing them too strongly because it would downplay his delegate math during this primary, but I have enough respect for him that I'm sure he recognizes caucuses are just as, if not worse, than closed primaries in terms of keeping people out of democratic process.

One final comment - I hope all the people going from Bernie to Stein keep this in mind as they join that party. They might be surprised to learn that the holier-than-thou third parties very much comprise of smoke-filled backroom deals with how things go down. It's not the pure land of democracy free of the tyranny of the "major parties" like people are envisioning.

3. Eh, I'm not fully supportive or dismissive of super-delegates - they are there for historical reasons and meet a particular need within the primary process. If we get rid of super-delegates, then we need some other mechanism to solve contested convention (actual contested conventions - not the imaginary one Bernie devised through tortured logic) and other circus acts from compromising the party agenda (i.e., electing an entirely unqualified celebrity personality or something of that nature).

I think a reasonable compromise would be a firm cap on the proportion of delegates that can be super-delegates relative to pledged delegates. Enough for party support to have the smallest hand on the scale, but not enough to be capable of overturning an unequivocal will of the electorate (one could say, a Trump sized hand).

4. My one take home lesson from this entire primary process is that the term "progressive" is incredibly vague and politically useless. I have a lot of sympathies that are progressive, but Bernie's particular brand of progressivism isn't popular with me personally. I'm not a fan of his complicated history with firearms, I vehemently disagree with his anti-nuclear and anti-GMO positions, I'm not intrinsically anti-trade deals, and I'm not a fan of isolationism or even non-interventionalism. Progressivism shouldn't be a race to the bottom - remember, the Green party finds support for homeopathy and being anti-vaccine "progressive" - so in a sense it's a very relative -ism. It shouldn't be a game of who can be the most ridiculous. So... I'm not sure what to say? I think there's a few issues we need to push further left, but they aren't really the things Bernie platformed on specifically. So this one is just a giant question mark for me.

 

[gcubed]

He really screwed his support after NV debacle didn't he? That's when the ratcheting up against him really started

 

[HK-47]

Your wish might come true.

C&H, as always, is perfect

 

[Box]

Why not? Sounds like a great outcome to me. He's done nothing to deserve anything.

Because enacting retribution against challengers is not a good way to get people to vote for you.

 

[Kin5290]

Because enacting retribution against challengers is not a good way to get people to vote for you.

He's the one exacting retribution against thinks that he sees wronged him. He's holding his endorsement hostage. If Clinton's camp or the DNC accede to any of these demands, that would be making concessions to the man who came in a distant second place who has decided to keep his moment in the spotlight with a loaded gun*, and they are absolutely not obligated to do any of that.

I mean, it's so transparently petty and self motivated. There's a reason why DWS is on the chopping block along with closed primaries (which aren't decided by the DNC) while caucuses are A-okay.

* And it's not working. The news cycle, the party, and his own voters have moved on to Hillary and more pressing news.

 

[Armaros]

Because enacting retribution against challengers is not a good way to get people to vote for you.

You mean like how he has made public vendettas vs specific politicians? DWS, and Barney Frank?

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Oh for fuck's sakes, admit defeat and back Hillary already. You have a bigger problem in the short term and that's called Trump.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Dude has no leverage whatsoever. He's a bit um, delusional

 

[LosDaddie]

Keep fighting the good fight, Bernie.

The Dem party needs reform. Something needs to change so the DNC can convince their voters to show up in the midterms.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I don't think Supers are a bad system until we get to the point where they completely override a primary. They did not in this case.

I think you can either have open primaries or no super delegates, having both is just asking for your platform to get hijacked. And that doesn't necessarily mean it will get more progressive, it could easily get more conservative if the tone of the country swung that way.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

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.

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.

Courts have long ruled that even without regulation, there's a legal expectation that you're selling something that's reasonably safe to use and operate. Vehicles weren't being made with that in mind (since seatbelts and airbags are incredibly effective but super cheap to add on). It's the same lawsuit I could bring against you if you sell me something that could be measurably safer but you don't because you're saving a few bucks.

Apples and oranges man, one is defective parts and regulated safety features and the other is a user specifically using what they bought for illegal activities. Nothing alike in any shape or form.

No he isn't "wrong" he is wrong only in your mind.

No, we're not talking defective anything. Nothing on a car without seatbelts is defective, and before the act that made them required, they weren't regulated. Still didn't stop people from suing car manufacturers for not doing enough to protect their customers.

If you put a biometric safety on a gun, you add a negligible cost to the weapon, and you make it insanely difficult to accidentally shoot anyone (a really common cause of gun death). If it was a car without a seatbelt, you could bring a lawsuit against the company. But thanks to Sanders and the people he backed, you can't even file the papers to do that with guns.

Again, there are only two industries in the entire country with such protections; guns and vaccines. Can you see how fucked it is that he wants them on that pedestal?

 

[SynthFetish]

As much as some of you hate Bernie, he has the support of many long time democrats. His voice does represent a large portion of the party, like it or not.

Personally he's not nearly left enough for my tastes, but it's something.

 

[Megadragon15]

As much as some of you hate Bernie, he has the support of many long time democrats. His voice does represent a large portion of the party, like it or not.

Personally he's not nearly left enough for my tastes, but it's something.

Sanders will be a forgotten has been very soon and his supporters will move on to the next "big" thing whomever or whatever that may be. His demands are childish.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

He won't get any of them and there are Progressive members already in the Democratic party.

Have those progressive members taken the purity test?

We need to see if they are my kind of progressive or if they're one of those disgusting neo-libral shills.

 

[BlastProcessing]

As much as some of you hate Bernie, he has the support of many long time democrats. His voice does represent a large portion of the party, like it or not.

Personally he's not nearly left enough for my tastes, but it's something.

Concession is the lynch pin of representative democracy.

Flip the script, if Sanders had been the one who won an overwhelming victory, would you be of with Clinton making platform demands? She represent a large portion of the party after all.

 

[SynthFetish]

Concession is the lynch pin of representative democracy.

Flip the script, if Sanders had been the one who won an overwhelming victory, would you be of with Clinton making platform demands? She represent a large portion of the party after all.

Yes, she represents a large portion of the party's views. Why would I be against that?

 

[Somnid]

Oh for fuck's sakes, admit defeat and back Hillary already. You have a bigger problem in the short term and that's called Trump.

There will never be a point at which the party does not consider an opposition president a crisis which is all the more reason this has to be put for at any and all times, by anyone and for any reason.

Also, you realize that a number of Republicans especially those who are more moderate and disagree with Trump backed him solely because they don't want Hillary in the White House. It's stupid proceduralism that serves only to maintain the party but not its values.

Sanders will be a forgotten has been very soon and his supporters will move on to the next "big" thing whomever or whatever that may be. His demands are childish.

Usually "childish" is reserved for throwing tantrums for superficial purposes. His points aren't without merit. It's one thing if you disagree with the points but if your reaction is "I agree but Democrats should tell him to fuck off because he didn't ask nicely" that would be childish.

 

[Box]

He's the one exacting retribution against thinks that he sees wronged him. He's holding his endorsement hostage. If Clinton's camp or the DNC accede to any of these demands, that would be making concessions to the man who came in a distant second place who has decided to keep his moment in the spotlight with a loaded gun*, and they are absolutely not obligated to do any of that.

I mean, it's so transparently petty and self motivated. There's a reason why DWS is on the chopping block along with closed primaries (which aren't decided by the DNC) while caucuses are A-okay.

* And it's not working. The news cycle, the party, and his own voters have moved on to Hillary and more pressing news.

I think maybe what you're missing here is that Bernie is representing more than himself. They're watching him voice their concerns, and if the DNC tries to punish him for that, they're sending a message directly to those voters.

There's no real reason to antagonize those voters. There are lots of races this fall and the DNC wants as many people voting Democrat as they can get. As I said before, most of these demands should be pretty painless to implement. The DNC can pick a few and give Bernie's supporters a reason to stay on board.

You mean like how he has made public vendettas vs specific politicians? DWS, and Barney Frank?

I don't know if that's how I mean since I didn't follow those stories. But I'm guessing that based on the tone here that you didn't appreciate retribution against your preferred politicians.

 

[sturgboski]

I think maybe what you're missing here is that Bernie is representing more than himself. They're watching him voice their concerns, and if the DNC tries to punish him for that, they're sending a message directly to those voters.

There's no real reason to antagonize those voters. There are lots of races this fall and the DNC wants as many people voting Democrat as they can get. As I said before, most of these demands should be pretty painless to implement. The DNC can pick a few and give Bernie's supporters a reason to stay on board.






I don't know if that's how I mean since I didn't follow those stories. But I'm guessing that based on the tone here that you didn't appreciate retribution against your preferred politicians.

But like some of those items ARE only for himself. DWS being replaced is because she didn't cow to him enough (and do lie to me that this isnt personal when he supported a guy who doesn't align with his beliefs just to unseat her). Super delegates were important when he was one (and as a huge hypocrite he backed Obama BEFORE the convention, the same shit he is upset about supers doing this time to him) and they were important when he was trying to steal the election from Clinton with vague arguments and threats (sort of like yours wherein the DNC needs to bow to Sanders demands or else he hands the election to Trump), not to mention they are needed so we don't get a Trump situation. Also primaries are the enemy BUT not caucuses which are less democratic BUT delivered him his victories. I mean at least 75% of these concessions are spiteful and to benefit him as its to changes things that he perceived as the reason for his loss. The fact that he is still doing this "agree to my demands or else" rhetoric now shows that this is really all for serving this man's ego with potential some run off for the policies he supported.

 

[boiled goose]

But like some of those items ARE only for himself. DWS being replaced is because she didn't cow to him enough (and do lie to me that this isnt personal when he supported a guy who doesn't align with his beliefs just to unseat her). Super delegates were important when he was one (and as a huge hypocrite he backed Obama BEFORE the convention, the same shit he is upset about supers doing this time to him) and they were important when he was trying to steal the election from Clinton with vague arguments and threats (sort of like yours wherein the DNC needs to bow to Sanders demands or else he hands the election to Trump), not to mention they are needed so we don't get a Trump situation. Also primaries are the enemy BUT not caucuses which are less democratic BUT delivered him his victories. I mean at least 75% of these concessions are spiteful and to benefit him as its to changes things that he perceived as the reason for his loss. The fact that he is still doing this "agree to my demands or else" rhetoric now shows that this is really all for serving this man's ego with potential some run off for the policies he supported.

DWS is corrupt as fuck. Pretty much the worst side of the democrats personified.

How would these be concessions "for him" when he already lost???

I don't think Supers are a bad system until we get to the point where they completely override a primary. They did not in this case.

I think you can either have open primaries or no super delegates, having both is just asking for your platform to get hijacked. And that doesn't necessarily mean it will get more progressive, it could easily get more conservative if the tone of the country swung that way.

I think supers should not state their support before the convention and if they have leanings, they should not be counted by news outlets. (DNC told media not to do this, they didn't give a fuck)

Keep fighting the good fight, Bernie.

The Dem party needs reform. Something needs to change so the DNC can convince their voters to show up in the midterms.

Yet in this thread people seem to think everything is fine! The Republicans are worse or wrong on every single issue and the democrats don't have the house or the senate. They cant even pass shit with a supermajority let alone majority. The democrats definitely need reform. Right now they are getting paid to lose.

 

[KRod-57]

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.

State law does NOT restrict a political party from having open primaries. Furthermore, if a person does not want to vote for their registered party, but wants to instead vote in the other primary, let them. People should be allowed to vote for whatever candidate they choose

In regards to what Sanders is proposing, he is only speaking at the party level. The Republicans can still have closed primaries if they so choose, what Sanders is proposing is for the Democrats to make open primaries a part of their platform

and why shouldn't they? most people don't identify as Republican or Democrat, they identify as independent.

 

[royalan]

I think supers should not state their support before the convention and if they have leanings, they should not be counted by news outlets. (DNC told media not to do this, they didn't give a fuck).

Again, sore loser tactics.

Supers openly stating their support in 08 did not stop Barack from beating Hillary. And back then BERNIE was one of the supers openly endorsing a candidate before the convention, seems like he didn't have a problem with it then.

 

[Stumpokapow]

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.

My point was that I didn't want what I was about to say to belittle your wife's personal experience, and out of respect and deference that rather than engage on her case in specific (or ask about the nature of her disability so as to explore the issue more precisely) I wanted to continue speaking in general terms. As I said earlier in the thread, I have no particular love for caucuses, my point was that I don't view hypocrisy and being self-serving as the same thing and I don't think advocating for an improvement when there's another more putatively obvious improvement being left unsaid is hypocritical.

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.

I had left the argument behind yesterday so I don't really want to do another handful of rounds back and forth, but I would say that a lack of awareness about comparative institutions dampens Americans' ability to grapple with their institutional limitations.

To put it in a simple analogy: when you grow up, your family subscribes to certain traditions. You begin to believe these traditions are normal or natural, and this makes it difficult to even understand how they structure your thinking because you actually come to a point where you don't know it could be any other way.

I absolutely agree that many Americans are reform-minded and many are willing to be comparative. In diagnosing the American body politic I'm not claiming it's a universal issue down to the last voter, I'm claiming it's a pathology. Also, while I believe it is worse in America than in most OECD countries, I do not believe it is unique, the urge to exceptionalize one's own situation is universal. But there are cultural and structural factors that make it worse in America.

The point of comparative thinking is not to say "they have it so we can have it"--it's to understand how it is that the historical and institutional choices we made structure outcomes. One of the best ways to gain support for the institutional reform you are suggesting is needed is to reform political culture such that more people are willing to look at other possible institutions--and thus abroad today and through history. The other thing is that although institutions shape our outcomes in many ways, we needn't essentialize those institutions to the degree we do, and part of the reason we do is myopia.

 

[Korigama]

State law does NOT restrict a political party from having open primaries. Furthermore, if a person does not want to vote for their registered party, but wants to instead vote in the other primary, let them. People should be allowed to vote for whatever candidate they choose

In regards to what Sanders is proposing, he is only speaking at the party level. The Republicans can still have closed primaries if they so choose, what Sanders is proposing is for the Democrats to make open primaries a part of their platform

and why shouldn't they? most people don't identify as Republican or Democrat, they identify as independent.

Why is it okay for Republicans to have it so that only Republicans are able to decide who their party leader will be, yet Democrats specifically are obligated to let anyone and everyone who isn't a member of the party do so?

 

[Big Baybee]

There really is no compelling argument to me as far as to why primaries should be open. If you want to decide who will represent democrats in an election, then join the Democratic Party.