Support NeoGAF

[zelas]

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/481531147/americans-dont-like-caucuses-but-replacing-them-with-primaries-isnt-easy

A 4 minute audio clip of the story is also available at the link above as well.

Voters unhappy with the political system this year and unsure about whether their vote matters have big complaints how the country's two main political parties choose their candidates.

A recent Associated Press-NORC poll found that about 40 percent of adults had hardly any confidence in the fairness of either party's nominating process. In particular, party-run caucuses and closed primaries where only voters registered with a party are allowed to participate are viewed as unfair, with just 29 percent of respondents believing they're the right way to pick a candidates for the general election.

Those tensions are all on display in Colorado this year, where a series of events have caused voters to deeply question whether they should adopt a presidential primary open to all voters. But Colorado's case also makes it clear that making big changes to how a state makes its picks for presidential nominees is no easy matter.

For Colorado Democrats, the problem was crowding. Record turnout overwhelmed many precinct locations. Some voters waited hours to make their preference known, while others were turned away by fire marshals.

Republicans had a very different experience. The state party decided not to hold a presidential vote on caucus night. When Colorado's Republican National Convention delegation – selected at the state assembly – ended up packed with Ted Cruz supporters, backers of businessman Donald Trump erupted in fury.

Caucuses are attractive to states because the parties foot the bill, not taxpayers. But Dan Diorio of the National Conference of State Legislatures says this year has many caucus states questioning whether it's worth it.

"I think that's really the reaction: were they adequately prepared and is this something that maybe a state should handle and run through the familiar apparatus of a state-run election?" says Diorio.

Only fourteen states hold presidential caucuses and already this year two of them – Maine and Minnesota – have decided to switch to a primary next time around.

A coalition of Denver business interests is funding a proposed ballot measure to move Colorado to a presidential primary. If they make it to the ballot, they may find a lot of public support; the AP-NORC poll found that more than 80 percent of people prefer primaries to caucuses.

"In democracy participation is healthy," says Kent Thiry, CEO of the kidney dialysis company DaVita and a co-chair of the committee behind Colorado's ballot measure. "The presidential election is the preeminent election, both substantively and symbolically, in America. We think Coloradans want to have a voice in that process. They want to be relevant."

Thiry's group isn't just interested in Colorado shifting to a presidential primary. It's also pushing a separate measure that would open primaries to unaffiliated voters – both the newly created presidential primary and the state primary in June. Business leaders say they hope that would lead to more moderate candidates competing in the general election and a more cooperative spirit at all levels of government.

Independents are the fastest growing group of Colorado voters and now make up 36 percent the electorate.

Many of Colorado's elected officials oppose opening primaries to independent voters, arguing it would undermine the mission of political parties.

"Just like it's Catholics who vote on the Pope and a good Baptist, a good Mormon doesn't have an opportunity to vote on that, the parties have the ability to say, 'I don't want someone who is not a member of my party picking my nominee,'" says Wayne Williams, the Republican Secretary of State.

Backers of opening up the primaries retort that Catholics don't ask Baptists or Mormons to help pay for the Papal succession, while elections are a public expense.

As someone who believes that special interests come in more forms than just big business, I'm all for states doing away with the caucus system. I believe we really shouldn't be encouraging the use of a system that at minimum presents a very time consuming hurdle for those who want to participate. A system that absolutely disenfranchises voters and is partially responsible for this country's extreme polarization on both sides. Semi-open primaries (registered for the party in question + unaffiliated registered voters) are the way to go.

 

[Mike M]

Semi-open primaries (registered for the party in question + unaffiliated registered voters) are the way to go.

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

 

[Jarmel]

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

It's probably better though for the party in that they can estimate how much a candidate is resonanting with independents.

 

[Vanillalite]

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

Tax payers are funding what is as you deem it a private entity and their selection process.

I'm fine with closed primaries, but you gotta 100% flip the bill.

You want access to the current taxpayer funded setup? Then you gotta be open.

 

[Krauser Kat]

Closed primaries,
Mail voting
Same day registration with 12 month lock in period, to keep people from trying to influence the other parties vote.

 

[Africanus]

I'm not certain where I stand in the whole open primary debate. In truth, I find the registered argument the most compelling, especially considering the fiasco of Democrats switching to vote for Trump as a joke and not voting for some of the other positions such as State Attorney and whatnot.

 

[Xe4]

Caucuses are gross and disenfrancising, and absolutely have to go. Primaries with mail in voting and early voting is the way to go.

 

[kirblar]

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

Open Primaries also allow the other party to brigade yours if their election's settled.

 

[Somnid]

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

You mean there's no compelling argument for political parties to relinquish power, it's overwhelmingly in the interest of the public to be able to participate at all levels of candidate selection and to remain fluid between parties to suite their interests.

 

[Zoe]

I think Texas's system is fair. Open primary, but you're locked in for run-offs.

Edit: I'd be fine with same day registration though.

 

[Mike M]

Tax payers are funding what is as you deem it a private entity and their selection process.

I'm fine with closed primaries, but you gotta 100% flip the bill.

You want access to the current taxpayer funded setup? Then you gotta be open.

Then think of it as a government subsidy to run a process far more efficient and equitable than caucuses.

Closed primaries,
Mail voting
Same day registration with 12 month lock in period, to keep people from trying to influence the other parties vote.

Caucuses are gross and disenfrancising, and absolutely have to go. Primaries with mail in voting and early voting is the way to go.

Open Primaries also allow the other party to brigade yours if their election's settled.

All this.

You mean there's not compelling argument for political parties to relinquish power, it's overwhelmingly in the interest of the public to be able to participate at all levels of candidate selection and to remain fluid between parties to suite their interests.

They can participate. Closed primaries exclude people who choose to be excluded from a party's selection process. Care that much? Join the party.

 

[titiklabingapat]

It's unfair by nature because you are choosing a private candidate by a private party. Don't like it, start your own party.

Respondents in this instance are acting like petulant little children who want it all but don't understand the process. I'm okay with not letting them choose if that's the case. We have a representative democracy, after all and I trust party members to choose what their party wants a to represent them, not some off the street Joe or Jane Schmoe. The Republicans did that and they got Trump. If party members choose some dingbat, then they should pay for it at the general ballot box and try again next time.

Automatic registration is fine though.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

We just need brain implants that are constantly monitoring our favorability to individual candidates. Whoever has the highest rating among this unified consciousness is president. The moment they are usurped they are decimated and replaced with our new favor.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Should the people even have a say in the party candidates?

 

[SecretMoblin]

It's sort of interesting (and also very very predictable) how feelings about the specific candidates shape how people view voting mechanisms. I was working in government during the 2008 primaries and general sentiment among lots of Obama-supporting Dems was that every state should have caucuses (at least in addition to primaries) -- that the party should encourage die-hards and passionate members to work together for the best interests of the party. It's worth noting that quite a bit of stuff happens at caucuses; they aren't an "election" and don't exist purely for determining a party's candidates.

It's neat how one specific system - closed, party-specific primaries - is suddenly all the rage because it happened to benefit the eventual nominee the most this time around.

And the idea of cross-party sabotage in open primaries is brought up every four years. To date there's been no evidence that it's actually a thing.

 

[Somnid]

Should the people even have a say in the party candidates?

Yes*

*unless someone else knows what's best for them.

 

[Mike M]

Should the people even have a say in the party candidates?

The U.S. is actually kind of unique in that regard, I believe most western democracies utilize a parliamentary system of voting for the party itself who in turn selects their representatives without voter input.

It's sort of interesting (and also very very predictable) how feelings about the specific candidates shape how people view voting mechanisms. I was working in government during the 2008 primaries and general sentiment among lots of Obama-supporting Dems was that every state should have caucuses (at least in addition to primaries) -- that the party should encourage die-hards and passionate members to work together for the best interests of the party. It's worth noting that quite a bit of stuff happens at caucuses; they aren't an "election" and don't exist purely for determining a party's candidates.

It's neat how one specific system - closed, party-specific primaries - is suddenly all the rage because it happened to benefit the eventual nominee the most this time around.

And the idea of cross-party sabotage in open primaries is brought up every four years. To date there's been no evidence that it's actually a thing.

I've viewed closed primaries as the better option since high school civics. This isn't some conviction of convenience, and I'm not especially concerned about Operation Chaos-type efforts either. A political party is a private organization and has a right to control their internal deliberations, which includes how candidates are selected.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Should the people even have a say in the party candidates?

Every other major developed country that has a parliamentary system don't even let you choose their ''leader'. You vote for the party itself and the party votes their leaders. The US is the outlier in this regard in that we actually have a chance to directly vote for the party leaders.

edit: beaten

 

[Vanillalite]

Then think of it as a government subsidy to run a process far more efficient and equitable than caucuses.






All this.


They can participate. Closed primaries exclude people who choose to be excluded from a party's selection process. Care that much? Join the party.

OK so it's a subsidy. Still not for it.

The problem is nobody wants to actually fund their own shit compared to how much they care about closed primaries (in my scenario).

To be clear I'm perfectly fine with closed primaries that are self put on.

 

[platocplx]

Should the people even have a say in the party candidates?

not if they are affiliated with the party. I dont understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Its either your all in for the party or care about who the party is pulling up or you stay on the sidelines as an independent.

And like other people said being affiliated means more than just being fly by night for a particular party and or have a movement to manipulate votes.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Yes*

*unless someone else knows what's best for them.

The U.S. is actually kind of unique in that regard, I believe most western democracies utilize a parliamentary system of voting for the party itself who in turn selects their representatives without voter input.

Every other major developed country that has a parliamentary system don't even let you choose their ''leader'. You vote for the party itself and the party votes their leaders. The US is the outlier in this regard in that we actually have a chance to directly vote for the party leaders.

edit: beaten

Don't those parties put forward a leader though? Like "if you vote for us, here's our person" Or are other systems voting strictly on party platform and the party throws whoever they want into the chair? I don't even know how it works in places like England. Just yesterday I read about shadow cabinets because I saw the term and it, of course, intrigued me. Turns out not that exciting but interesting.

I know other systems don't have the primary system. It's a relatively recent invention but I don't think it has a great track record of picking great candidates.

 

[Vanillalite]

I've viewed closed primaries as the better option since high school civics. This isn't some conviction of convenience, and I'm not especially concerned about Operation Chaos-type efforts either. A political party is a private organization and has a right to control their internal deliberations, which includes how candidates are selected.

OK then don't have the tax payers at large flip the bill ?

 

[Mike M]

Also worth considering that primary votes only count for anything by virtue of the party's forbearance to do so. There's open talk in the GOP of changing the convention rules so that delegates can vote for whomever they want to stop Trump.

Doing so would be a bad idea for several reasons, but it illustrates the point that your "right" to participate in the selection process is illusionary and the parties can ignore your vote at their leisure.

OK then don't have the tax payers at large flip the bill ?

Why not? So long as all parties that meet a viability threshold are treated equally, I'm all for it.

Fixing the problem of first past the post voting inevitably developing into a two party system would go much further in remedying this than open primaries.

 

[PeskyToaster]

OK then don't have the tax payers at large flip the bill ?

That's another problem I have with primaries and parties in general. Tax payer money is used to set up and staff these primaries. Often times other local business is on the ballot. Primaries shouldn't use official election infrastructure. They aren't real elections and shouldn't be treated as such. The reason the parties are in a bind for trying to "game the system" is because they put all these work into making them look like official elections and people have expectations of things like privacy and fairness for real elections which these party systems don't meet all the time.

 

[Vanillalite]

Why not? So long as all parties that meet a viability threshold are treated equally, I'm all for it.

Fixing the problem of first past the post voting inevitably developing into a two party system would go much further in remedying this than open primaries.

Of course your for it. It's essentially free money to run your private organization's closed event which in this case would be an election primary.

Everyone wishes the tax payers would flip the bill for their private deal. Then they don't have to pay for it!

 

[kirblar]

That's another problem I have with primaries and parties in general. Tax payer money is used to set up and staff these primaries. Often times other local business is on the ballot. Primaries shouldn't use official election infrastructure. They aren't real elections and shouldn't be treated as such. The reason the parties are in a bind for trying to "game the system" is because they put all these work into making them look like official elections and people have expectations of things like privacy and fairness for real elections which these party systems don't meet all the time.

Primaries are part of the electoral system in the US due to the way it's set up.

There's as real an election as anything else.

 

[diaspora]

OK then don't have the tax payers at large flip the bill ?

Better taxpayers than corporations/ private individuals. The goverent should foot the bill on primaries and primaries themselves ought to be for registered members only- arguments to have them totally open are juvenile imo.

 

[Mike M]

Better taxpayers than corporations/ private individuals.

Pretty much. Remove taxpayer funding and the only parties that will he primaries are the ones who can afford to.

You just privatized elections. Congrats!

 

[The Technomancer]

The "private org" argument is not super compelling to me, but the risk of open primaries absolutely is. Letting people cross party lines to fuck with the opposition is a bad idea

 

[Vanillalite]

Pretty much. Remove taxpayer funding and the only parties that will he primaries are the ones who can afford to.

You just privatized elections. Congrats!

Did you miss the logic train?

Who said taxpayer funding couldn't be used for primaries?

Tax payer funding just couldn't be used for CLOSED primaries.

That's been the bone of contention the whole time.

Anyone could use public funds if they held an open primary.

 

[Mike M]

Did you miss the logic train?

Who said taxpayer funding couldn't be used for primaries?

Tax payer funding just couldn't be used for CLOSED primaries.

That's been the bone of contention the whole time.

Yes, and it's kind of a dumb one. There's no logical connection between tying taxpayer funding to whether or not elections are open or closed. You disagree. Great. Good for you.

 

[Vanillalite]

Yes, and it's kind of a dumb one. There's no logical connection between tying taxpayer funding to whether or not elections are open or closed. You disagree. Great. Good for you.

It's only "dumb" or "stupid" cause nobody wants to actually fund the primaries themselves. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too with regards to this.

It's worth noting where I live it's open. You declare when you go in to get your ballot.

Oh and guess what despite that there's never been an issue with one party trying to sabotage the other's primary by sandbagging.

 

[Blader]

It's probably better though for the party in that they can estimate how much a candidate is resonanting with independents.

Independents are overrated. Most reliably vote Democrat or Republican every cycle.

But open primaries are good for steering the party toward new ideas and policies.

 

[SecretMoblin]

the open primaries whining is super weird; it sounds exactly like bogus voter I.D. concerns.

When have Republican voters fucked over the Democratic primary process? When have Democrats done the same? Is there any evidence that it has had any impact whatsoever in any open primary, ever?

Open primaries were suggested by the parties themselves. They weren't imposed by fiat. If a party wants to let non-members have a say in its nominating process because it feels the winner is most likely to be successful in the general election (something that the history of open primaries suggests is true), why not let them?

 

[Somnid]

not if they are affiliated with the party. I dont understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Its either your all in for the party or care about who the party is pulling up or you stay on the sidelines as an independent.

And like other people said being affiliated means more than just being fly by night for a particular party and or have a movement to manipulate votes.

This is how it ideally would work in your head but not how it works in reality. Colorado has more independent voters than Democrats or Republicans. If people aren't participating or cannot participate because of ideological non-sense then that is a broken system as the candidates do not necessarily reflect the largest section of voters.

Also vote manipulation arguments aren't compelling at all. There's little evidence that this happens, and it work both ways. This is the exact same logic used for voter ID laws and does not excuse legitimate voter disenfranchisement even if there is potential for it to happen.

 

[Mike M]

It's only "dumb" or "stupid" cause nobody wants to actually fund the primaries themselves. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too with regards to this.

It's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of appropriateness. It's a function of government, it should be government funded. Political parties are one of those private/public intersections where you can't disentangle it so easily.

Government-funded closed primaries for every party, same day registration, and a deadline that is not onerous to switch registration is entirely reasonable. Open primaries offer nothing of any consequence that is not covered by such a system, but the former should be excluded from taxpayer funds for reasons.

Okay.

It's worth noting where I live it's open. You declare when you go in to get your ballot.

Oh and guess what despite that there's never been an issue with one party trying to sabotage the other's primary by sandbagging.

I expressly stated I'm not worried about sabotage.

Open primaries were suggested by the parties themselves. They weren't imposed by fiat. If a party wants to let non-members have a say in its nominating process because it feels the winner is most likely to be successful in the general election (something that the history of open primaries suggests is true), why not let them?

Open vs closed is imposed by state law, not the parties. If the parties want to do open primaries (point of interest, WA's primaries don't count at the Democratic Party's discretion because they're open), that's their prerogative, but it's out of their hands. They can do caucuses, primaries in accordance with state law, or some mix, but they don't get to dictate the specifics of the primary.

 

[zelas]

There's not really a compelling argument for open or semi-open primaries. It's an internal means by which a private entity selects its candidate for an elected office. Want to participate? Join the party. Don't want to sign on to a party? Then you're entitled to absolutely no influence in that process.

Closed primaries, vote by mail all the way.

Do the parties care more about agenda for agenda sake or do they care about actually acquiring the power to fulfill that agenda? Sure it's fine they they do whatever they want but the moment one party embraces independents the other party is screwed. That's a reality that needs to be addressed.

 

[Aureon]

Or, move the entire election to a two-stage procedure so the whole primary shebang can be skipped, and reduce the power of the parties in the process.

 

[Mike M]

Do the parties care more about agenda for agenda sake or do they care about actually acquiring the power to fulfill that agenda? Sure it's fine they they do whatever they want but the moment one party embraces independents the other party is screwed. That's a reality that needs to be addressed.

If you mean embracing as in opening their primaries to independents while the other doesn't, that's not possible.

 

[Kettch]

I don't really understand why anyone would register independent in a closed primary state to begin with. The only thing picking a party does is allow you to vote in the primary, except maybe artificially inflating the party's numbers, but it's not like that matters at all.

I registered independent because the Democratic party often doesn't coincide with my views that well, but I'd switch over in a heartbeat if my state moved to a closed primary system.

 

[Somnid]

I don't really understand why anyone would register independent in a closed primary state to begin with. The only thing picking a party does is allow you to vote in the primary, except maybe artificially inflating the party's numbers, but it's not like that matters at all.

I registered independent because the Democratic party often doesn't coincide with my views that well, but I'd switch over in a heartbeat if my state moved to a closed primary system.

For the reasons you mention. It's a personal statement in some ways, it affects how people perceive you and how you want to be perceived and in many ways that personal identity is a little more important than politics. Maybe you think both Hillary and Bernie are full of shit and don't want to be associated with it, it's not strictly rational but it is human.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

For the reasons you mention. It's a personal statement in some ways, it affects how people perceive you and how you want to be perceived and in many ways that personal identity is a little more important than politics. Maybe you think both Hillary and Bernie are full of shit and don't want to be associated with it, it's not strictly rational but it is human.

It doesn't affect how people perceive you because nobody would even know which party you are registered with unless you wore it on a shirt everywhere you went. Is discussing which party you are registered for something that happens often with you?

 

[Somnid]

It doesn't affect how people perceive you because nobody would even know which party you are registered with unless you wore it on a shirt everywhere you went. Is discussing which party you are registered for something that happens often with you?

Politics is universally one of the biggest conversation topics. I'm surprised you are surprised. People buy yard signs, bumper stickers and yes T-shirts to show their affiliation. Not uncommon at all.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Politics is universally one of the biggest conversation topics. I'm surprised you are surprised. People buy yard signs, bumper stickers and yes T-shirts to show their affiliation. Not uncommon at all.

Discussing politics and discussing which party you are registered for are completely different. I could talk to you all day about politics, giving my opinion on both candidates and my feelings towards their positions and you would have no clue if im registered for either party or not. I have never in my life told anyone which party I'm actually registered for and it has never come up in a conversation otherwise.

Your example of yard signs is proving my point, you wouldn't know who that person is voting for if they didn't advertise it. And even with them posting a sign in their yard you don't know if they are registered with a party.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm ok with semi-open primaries as an alternative to caucuses.

What I'm not supportive of is letting Republicans vote in Democratic primaries. Go fuck up your own party, you're good at that.

 

[Somnid]

Discussing politics and discussing which party you are registered for are completely different. I could talk to you all day about politics, giving my opinion on both candidates and my feelings towards their positions and you would have no clue if im registered for either party or not. I have never in my life told anyone which party I'm actually registered for and it has never come up in a conversation otherwise.

Your example of yard signs is proving my point, you wouldn't know who that person is voting for if they didn't advertise it. And even with them posting a sign in their yard you don't know if they are registered with a party.

You're looking too hard at the idealistic aspect. What you say isn't untrue but that's not how it manifests. Being homosexual is also a hidden trait, unless I snuck into your bedroom at night how on Earth could I surmise such a fact? And because it can be hidden does that mean we just ignore problems arising from that, either how people can be discriminated, judged or how they choose to integrate themselves into society? Or should be look at the fact people do make it visible, want to make it visible, they feel it's important to their identity and that we need understand it in such practical terms.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

You're looking too hard at the idealistic aspect. What you say isn't untrue but that's not how it manifests. Being homosexual is also a hidden trait, unless I snuck into your bedroom at night how on Earth could I surmise such a fact? And because it can be hidden does that mean we just ignore problems arising from that, either how people can be discriminated, judged or how they choose to integrate themselves into society? Or should be look at the fact people do make it visible, want to make it visible, they feel it's important to their identity and that we need understand it in such practical terms.

I don't see how staying in the closet as a homosexual is at all related to not discussing which political party you are registered to. You can hold the exact same opinions if you are registered as a Democrat as you can if you are a registered independent. The only thing you can possibly do extra as an independent is throw it in people's face that you are an independent, which would be pretty strange in the flow of a natural political conversation.

Again placing a sign in your lawn advertising for a candidate does not mean you are actually registered for that party.

 

[Somnid]

I don't see how staying in the closet as a homosexual is at all related to not discussing which political party you are registered to. You can hold the exact same opinions if you are registered as a Democrat as you can if you are a registered independent. The only thing you can possibly do extra as an independent is throw it in people's face that you are an independent, which would be pretty strange in the flow of a natural political conversation.

Again placing a sign in your lawn advertising for a candidate does not mean you are actually registered for that party.

It's the 80% scenario, yours is the 20% scenario, most people in a party vote inline with that party and that is how people come to see it. Don't seek to suss out the objectivity of it, we're talking about personal, cultural items.

 

[studyguy]

Caucuses are attractive to states because the parties foot the bill, not taxpayers.

This above everything is the largest overriding factor in things from what I've seen how election decisions are made in CA. No one in the state wants to do anything that looks like it'll incur an added cost. In our state it's already wildly expensive to run a campaign and process everything involved with ballots/election day. Anything to deal with cost reduction is always considered. San Diego was looking at doing mail in ballots only in 2014 for local elections in to test for other elections iirc for example.

 

[zelas]

If you mean embracing as in opening their primaries to independents while the other doesn't, that's not possible.

Embracing in terms of rhetoric. We have seen how populism has helped certain candidates this cycle and the fact that there is some crossover appeal there. There are enough states with open voting that can be used to affect the outcomes or relevance of other states.