Thanks to democrats.
Posted on 08/08/2014 9:04:31 PM PDT by Steelfish
Angry Republican Leaders Ready To Shut Door On Open Primaries Changes sought after Mississippi Democrats help Thad Cochran beat Chris McDaniel
“I have been a longtime supporter of closed primaries to choose our candidates for office,” said Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus, “this is a position I have held for a long time and is consistent with the ... more > By Ralph Z. Hallow - August 6, 2014 CHICAGO — Any party that allows its opponents to help pick its candidates in “open” primaries is a PPINO — a “political party in name only” — say many Republican officials at their annual summer meeting.
Republican National Committee members and activists are still seething about reports that longtime Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican, enlisted Democrats to help him win his tough primary contest this summer against state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who was backed by the tea party.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Such a reform is long overdue.
Open primaries were devised to elect RINOs (”moderates”)
“...who controls that, the RNC or the states?”
According to the article, the states control through their election laws, and there are 27 open primary states.
Wannna guess how many of those are blue?
All 27?
Maybe not, but still great odds that all 27 are.
Maybe someone knows or could research it.
Barbour sued to get closed primaries in Mississippi. He lost.
“Angry Republican Leaders Ready To Shut Door On Open Primaries Changes sought after Mississippi Democrats help Thad Cochran beat Chris McDaniel”
That is really rich, considering it was the GOPe that orchestrated the whole damned scam to begin with. It wasn’t the open primary that was the problem, it was repubs allowing dems to vote in the runoff
It varies from state to state. In Mississippi, it is state law that prevents closing primaries - there is no registration by party affiliation.
The Republican Party could Guarantee closed "private" primaries by simply paying for them.
The instant a party accepts public financing, the primary is "open." The dirty big secret here is that when one's campaign entity accepts public funding, one (the candidate, with appropriate kickbacks) gets to keep any unspent campaign funds by means fair or fairly foul.
The RNC thus gets to save its own money, while adding to oddly dispersed funds supplied by taxpayer funding. This issue of "leftover campaign funds" is murky indeed.
The Pat Buchanan family fortune is based entirely upon unspent federal matching finds. John Kerry creamed some $15 million in unspent funds, and down the line it goes. If a Congressman can last three terms, he (and his family) are multi-millionaires. Case in point, Dirty Harry Reid: comes to town with zilch, now worth hundreds of millions. Joe Biden? Orin Hatch? Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? Nancy P., whose husband almost managed to steal the Presidio? Feinstein and Boxer, who are in the Bbillionaire category? Check'em out.
In almost every case, that first couple of million? Unspent campaign funds. The rest? Well, on Wall Street the SEC might very well call it, "Insider Trading."
Thanks to democrats.
States and it is more complicated than just Open or Closed - see http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two/
Texas is open primary.
The states.
We are permanently disabled by the open primary system. We can’t control our own primaries. This is the reason we got McCain, Romney, and maybe Dole. We are sooo screwed.
Call Them Republicans if you want. But don’t call them leaders.
Not all states have open primaries.
I think what would be interesting is a semi-open
primary.
By this I mean that all the parties's candidates are listed and every voter may vote for one, and only one, person.
This means that there couldn't be the vote in one primary, change parties, vote in another — but it also offers more freedom than your voter registration says 'independent', you can't vote in any primary
.
There's nothing wrong with that.
If you want to vote in a primary...pick a side.
How else do you think we got Presidential candidate, John McCain, even Mitt Romney - Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.
The only states with open primaries have elected officials who are "moderate" Republicans in charge.
Democrats never worry about having Republicans crossing over and voting in their primaries as most of us wouldn't be caught dead asking for a Democrat ballot!
It is always up to the states to determine their own election rules and regulations.
Some time ago, liberals began claiming that what "we" needed was to "open primaries" that way, one could merely vote in whichever party's primary you wanted without having to do something "so partisan and exclusionary as having a closed primary election."
They even went so far as to hold "non-partisan" local elections even for Mayor, etc.
The only people that this ever helps are liberals, whether Democrat or Republicans!
Those 27 states with open primaries can vote at anytime to close their primaries but my thinking is that as many of those states are ruled by liberals, it won't happen.
I'm all for deciding whom to choose as a Presidential candidate by holding the first primaries only in closed primary states, that way we don't wind up with John McCain, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole!
“I am dead set against open primaries...until another tea party candidate threatens one of my gopE friends” said Reince Priebus.
Fixed.
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.