Can anyone explain to me why any state has an open primary? I don’t get it.
Because the RNC are a bunch of idiots. If they had any spine, they would insist on closed primaries or the state would lose delegates. It is about time GOP voters decide a GOP nominee.
Because closed primaries were declared to be racist here. Yes, the idea is stupid. If open primaries stop giving libs what they want then they’ll be against them.
The theory is that having open primaries encourages independent voters to buy into your party. I don't how if that is how it works in real life but that is the theory. Say for example you vote for a candidate in the primary and he is the nominee, you are much more likely to vote for him again in the general, that is the theory.
myself and others have been saying the same thing
Open means we have kooks, libs, Dems and non party voting for OUR nominee.
HOW ON EARTH IS THAT RIGHT AND WHY DO WE START WITH NH AND IT BEING OPEN?
Close these frigging primaries so only republicans not libs elect our man or woman.
BTSOM. Iowa is open, New Hampshire is WIDE open, and then SC.
The entire process, the basketball tournament atmosphere of the present Presidential Primary system was institutionalized, finally, as "reform" within the Democrat Party, following 1968 (when the guy put in charge of their "reforms" after the Chicago convention and Humphrey's loss to Richard Nixon was George McGovern, - who then went on to win their nomination in 1972) and once again after 1972 (when the guy put in charge of their "reforms" following McGovern's landslide loss to Richard Nixon was a little know former Governor of Georgia named Jimmy Carter, who went on to win their nomination in 1976).
The state houses, once primarily Democrat, and with both Party s acquiescence, drove this unholy marriage between state governments and the "fair" selection of convention delegates to put an end to "the smoke-filled rooms."
As time went on the ridiculous idea took root of having state elites regulate and the taxpayers pay outright for a process that led to more and more endless demands for "fairness." This was especially true where such a process was considered to be in the best interests of the Party in power, or in the worst interests of the Party out of power.
In the name of reform, but for very partisan and always very local reasons this system gradually completely "opened up" and these publicly-paid elections with loose as a goose voter id laws took shape, all set up to slew the results.
The smoke-filled room became a sports event, open only to those who could game the system, and the media, of course, loved it like they do all sports contests
After many election cycles and many decades after Estes Kefauver won the once-obscure New Hampshire primary in 1952 and when Eugene McCarthy did so much better than expected when he lost to Lyndon Johnson in New Hampshire in 1968 a largely Democrat Party-driven system was adopted by Republicans also, or they were left with no say in the matter or just wanted some of that same action.
Consider those of us who live in places like North Carolina. Our state primary, which is also our presidential primary, is not until May (unless delayed by a redistricting court case as in '02 and '04). That means, of course, that the nomination battle will more than likely be well over before we have our first opportunity to participate.
The way I see it, this is not just wrong, it's a damn wrong. The whole process stinks worse than any smoke-filled room ever did.
And "open primaries," elsewhere? That's almost as stupid as having this over-in-January presidential primary process nationally, where Democrats and Independents at taxpayer expense get to decide who the Republican Party's nominee will be.
I say it's "spinach," and I say "to hell with it."