Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why have Open Primaries?

Posted on 03/06/2014 6:55:52 AM PST by A'elian' nation

Almost half of the states have open primaries. Why do states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have open republican primaries? It's like having a death wish to turn purple, blue, and asphyxiated by democrat and independent voters.

One of the first things the Tea Party needs to do is turn more states into closed primaries. The theory is that open primaries will bring more voters to our tent. I don't buy it. Or maybe the republican brand name is so bad that people don't want to register as republicans and be stigmatized. But then you would think the GOP in California would have open primaries, but theirs are closed.

I believe RINO politicians like the open primaries to keep them in office. That seems sensible but then why do so many southern states have open primaries where RINOS are almost extinct? It's befuddling. I don't see what is to be gained by having open primaries to voters that can sabotage our tea candidates?

Am hoping there are some Freepers out there that can enlighten me. Meanwhile here is a chart of the states with open and closed primaries.

http://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-states-with-open-and-closed-primaries/


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: elections; primaries; republicanparty

1 posted on 03/06/2014 6:55:52 AM PST by A'elian' nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

Why do states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have open republican primaries?

That is so true. I could see purple states but not deep red or even deep blue for that matter.


2 posted on 03/06/2014 6:57:53 AM PST by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

How many Democrats voted so that the Republicans would be stuck with McCain, Dole, ....?

Open primaries are an open invitation to sabotage. The Republican Party must be able to control its own processes, for pete’s sake!!


3 posted on 03/06/2014 7:03:39 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

So democrats can cross over and select the weakest possible candidate for the republicans, DUH!!!


4 posted on 03/06/2014 7:07:23 AM PST by null and void ( Obama is Law-Less because Republican "leaders" are BALL-LESS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation
Because they are the stupid party.


5 posted on 03/06/2014 7:16:44 AM PST by McGruff (Don't worry. John Kerry is in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

The few dimwits I know admitted to voting for Cornyn in the primary since they know true conservatives are trying to oust him. I don’t know if that is a statewide trend. I don’t doubt that they didn’t do this for McLame and Mittens. The dim primaries are usually just one candidate anyway or at least a front runner and a long shot. Rush may have opened Pandora’s Box with his Operation Chaos for Shillary.


6 posted on 03/06/2014 7:19:13 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

I was shocked when I moved to an open primary state. Having come from the left coast and the republic of fruits, nuts, and flakes I figured my new state would have more sense. Nope. I guess they don’t care who votes for whom.

Open primaries allow for mischief that is usually driven by some leftie disguised as a conservative.


7 posted on 03/06/2014 7:21:28 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

I live in Virginia, an open primary State. Also, I am a County Republican Chairman.

Open primaries exist because establishment Republicans want independents and Democrats to vote in their primaries, as the winners are more liberal.

In Virginia, Senator John Warner won the open primaries when he was challenged. He would have lost his seat had the primaries been closed.

To close the primaries, we need to replace the liberal leaders in the State party organizations.


8 posted on 03/06/2014 7:38:08 AM PST by Oak Grove (H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

When I moved from Texas to NY, I was SHOCKED that I had to declare a party to register to vote. Then, I found out that, if you want to change parties, you have to wait a YEAR before voting in the new party.

Now back in Texas and getting my card stamped as to which party’s ballot I voted.

Pros and Cons to both - I guess I wouldn’t mind closed primaries if there was more mobility.


9 posted on 03/06/2014 7:45:15 AM PST by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose

Here in Michigan we have open primaries but you can only vote for one party on a ballot. In the coming election it should be fine because of the big open seats and uncrowded fields on both sides.


10 posted on 03/06/2014 7:54:13 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose
When I moved from Texas to NY, I was SHOCKED that I had to declare a party to register to vote. Then, I found out that, if you want to change parties, you have to wait a YEAR before voting in the new party.

If participatory democracy is such a great thing, why not allow an individual to vote in both primaries in the same year? Couldn't someone make the argument that since both primaries affect me that I should have the right to vote in both?

I'm not advocating this but just trying to push the underlying thinking to its extreme. In the last decade, I think that we've all seen the unthinkable become normal in our society.

11 posted on 03/06/2014 8:02:51 AM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oak Grove
As an outsider looking in, as I am from Canada, I have always been baffled by the primary process. It always seemed like a no shit sherlock moment, that liberals would flood open primaries to get a milquetoast Republican to win.
12 posted on 03/06/2014 8:16:07 AM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oak Grove

Precisely


13 posted on 03/06/2014 9:01:05 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose

That year long wait is a NY thing


14 posted on 03/06/2014 9:02:30 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

I only had that experience to go by - NY is SOOOO messed up!


15 posted on 03/06/2014 9:06:40 AM PST by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation

My understanding is, the parties agreed to it because they wanted to foist the cost of running elections off onto the taxpayer, and Primaries that are closed to the taxpayers who aren’t in the parties would be anathema.

The Parties brought the negative results upon themselves, and they can’t go back unless they’re willing to foot the bills for the elections, and even then a very vocal minority of “Independent” (stop laughing) voters will fight it tooth and nail. “It’s. Not. Fair! {sob}”


16 posted on 03/06/2014 9:22:28 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose

A good reason not to be there. :)


17 posted on 03/06/2014 9:45:11 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oak Grove

“we need to replace the liberal leaders in the State party organizations.”

Hard to believe there would be a lot of liberal leaders needing replacement in the southern states I mentioned. Is it like Cyper Liberty mentioned - that if it was a closed primary the party has to pay for the election, but if it is open all the taxpayers pay for it ?

Do you recall a state changing its primaries to open or closed periodically? How often does a primary revert to one or the other?


18 posted on 03/06/2014 10:08:46 AM PST by A'elian' nation ("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sam Gamgee

“I am from Canada, I have always been baffled by the primary process.”

With the way we have mucked up our elections, I am liking your parliamentary system more and more. I’d love to actually see Prime Minister Question hour on the floor of our capital. Our leaders never really have to confront each other in reasoned debate - a great failing of our system.


19 posted on 03/06/2014 10:18:30 AM PST by A'elian' nation ("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation
Why do states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have open republican primaries?

Because the electorate in open primaries more closely resembles the electorate in general elections, so the candidate who wins the open primary is more likely to win the general?

Plus, in those states that you mentioned open primaries -- until rather recently -- mean conservative Democrats voting in Republican primaries.

Arguably, there was a day when open primaries could have meant more conservative Republican nominees, rather than fewer.

Either there is a large conservative voting bloc outside registered GOP voters that will go with more conservative candidates in the primary and general election or there isn't.

If there is, then you'll get more conservative nominees and representatives. If there isn't, you won't. A closed primary won't change that.

20 posted on 03/06/2014 10:27:01 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
My understanding is, the parties agreed to it because they wanted to foist the cost of running elections off onto the taxpayer, and Primaries that are closed to the taxpayers who aren’t in the parties would be anathema.

Not the case here in PA. Primaries are closed, but the state monitors and runs the elections (as I understand it).

Also, you don't have to wait a year to vote or anything like that. You do have to register in advance of the election (they close registration 30 days before).

21 posted on 03/06/2014 10:29:44 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation
Do you recall a state changing its primaries to open or closed periodically? How often does a primary revert to one or the other?

Open primaries are like gay marriage. Some states move to open primaries. None ever go back. It's "progress."

22 posted on 03/06/2014 10:31:52 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

That’s a good way to run things. Here’s proof positive it’s a good way: Arlen Specter hated it so much he pointed at it as the reason he jumped back to the Rats.

Better still, he lost. Six months as a lame duck for “Mr. Scottish Law,” “Mr. ‘Super-Duper Precedent’” was delicious to me. I danced on his political grave.


23 posted on 03/06/2014 10:39:01 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Open primaries are like gay marriage. Some states move to open primaries. None ever go back. It's "progress."

"Like."

24 posted on 03/06/2014 10:39:53 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: x

“A closed primary won’t change that. “

So a closed primary won’t change anything, yet half the country is on an open system and half are closed. If there is no net result difference with either one then why aren’t they all closed or all open?

Obviously half the states feel there is an advantage to their system. And why don’t they change with changing times as you mentioned about how it was way back when?


25 posted on 03/06/2014 10:41:32 AM PST by A'elian' nation ("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

In California, a party can’t even run a candidate in the general election.

Everyone is in one big primary and the top two run in the general.

More “progress.”

Early voting and mail in voting are other stupid ideas that progressives like.


26 posted on 03/06/2014 11:37:38 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A'elian' nation
My hunch is that at least some time open primaries in those states allowed conservative Democrats to overcome their hostility to the GOP vote for conservative Republicans in Republican primaries. I don't have evidence and don't know how things are in those states nowadays.

The complaint one usually hears is that open presidential primaries in states Republicans will never carry give an advantage to more moderate or liberal Republicans. There's something to be said for that theory. It's also a variant of the Carter-Clinton-era complaint of liberal Democrats that the Super Tuesday primaries in Southern that Democrats usually lost hurt the more liberal contenders who were the choice of party activists.

Open primaries were a good idea when the parties weren't so ideologically divided. If there was a chance that Democrats might actually nominate the more conservative candidate, it was a good idea to be free to help that candidate win his primary. That rationale doesn't exist nowadays, but if one party's primary were confined to paid-up dues-paying members of a political party, the candidates chosen wouldn't be as representative of the constituency as a whole and would be likely to lose the general election.

27 posted on 03/06/2014 4:23:33 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: x

“Open primaries were a good idea when the parties weren’t so ideologically divided.”

That is well stated and has been my understanding as well. I really don’t see the advantage of open primaries the more vituperative and divided our politics have become.

Mississisppi is facing thie dilemma right now. While the nation is focused on the McDaniel tea party Senate challenge to Thad Cochran, the Palazzi House race has become interesting since one-time democrat and previous office holder, now turned republican, Gene Taylor, has entered the republican primary against Palazzi.

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/37203/


28 posted on 03/07/2014 11:05:43 AM PST by A'elian' nation ("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson