ADVERTISEMENT

Open primaries

nope, primaries are for the parties to select their candidate for the General Election
Then you will vote against it. And we will see how it works out. Most states have open primaries BTW. Only 12 backwards ones don't!
 
Then you will vote against it. And we will see how it works out. Most states have open primaries BTW. Only 12 backwards ones don't!
I assume you’re talking about primaries which allow Dems, Pubs and Independents to vote in either the Dem or Pub primary?
 
I assume you’re talking about primaries which allow Dems, Pubs and Independents to vote in either the Dem or Pub primary?
Not in this case. The petition is for a single primary ballot much as done in Tulsa except that party affiliation will be shown on ballot.
 
Not in this case. The petition is for a single primary ballot much as done in Tulsa except that party affiliation will be shown on ballot.
That type of primary is currently being done in only three states…Cali, Oregon and Alaska (hybrid). I know Arizona and Nevada had similar ballot measures two weeks ago. Both were defeated. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m not really sure how I feel about this initiative.
 
That type of primary is currently being done in only three states…Cali, Oregon and Alaska (hybrid). I know Arizona and Nevada had similar ballot measures two weeks ago. Both were defeated. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m not really sure how I feel about this initiative.
All but 12 states have some form of open primary. That was my point.

I strongly support this type of open primary. It is well suited to diminishing partisanship and driving politics towards the middle IMO watching Tulsa elections and our improved collaboration in local government.

Now if parties want to pay for their own caucases and pick a single preferred candidate so be it. But I do not like paying for elections in which I cannot vote.
 
All but 12 states have some form of open primary. That was my point.

I strongly support this type of open primary. It is well suited to diminishing partisanship and driving politics towards the middle IMO watching Tulsa elections and our improved collaboration in local government.

Now if parties want to pay for their own caucases and pick a single preferred candidate so be it. But I do not like paying for elections in which I cannot vote.
By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though
I think you should have to choose which primary you want to vote on, not be able to choose the candidate you want in BOTH primaries. That way, if you are far right wing you have to decide if it is more important to vote for your preferred candidate in the Republican primary or more important to vote on the one you don't want in office, or would take as a second choice from the Democratic side.(or vice versa) You shouldn't be able to vote on both. You can do this by changing parties before the primary, and changing parties again, before the general election. It just eliminates having to change parties at the election board twice.
 
Last edited:
so no more Party Presidential Ptimaries and Conventions. So this year no Kamala and since Joe dropped out the top two would have been Trump and Desandches(sp).
 
By far the most common type of open primary is one where Pubs, Dems and Ind can vote in either the Dem or Pub. Which gives everyone the opportunity to vote in the primary of their choice. I took exception to your post because you made it sound like this type of primary was common when it fact it’s only being used in two states (three if you include the hybrid in Alaska). The movement does seem to have a bit of momentum but as I said the proposal was just defeated in Arizona and Nevada.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a tradition open primary like we see in most states. Not sure we’re ready for the type being proposed. Arizona and Nevada certainly weren’t. Should be put to a vote though
It is the most common and I would support that too. But prefer the system being proposed.
 
Seems pretty simple, you vote yes if you are in favor of disenfranchising voters and damaging political parties. You vote no if you think democracy and the 1st Amendment right of free association actually means something.

If you think this is a good idea, propose to people being paid full time to advocate for these changes that we adopt the alternative blanket primary system where voters can select any candidate but only the top two vote getters from the top two differing political parties advance to the general. They generally have a fit. All of their concern about voter choice and election economy comes to a grinding halt.

These initiatives are about not only depriving political parties of selecting their candidates, but also about systematically controlling debate. These initiatives are less about reducing partisan behavior and more about party supermajorities stifling debate.

If you favor this, then you favor OSU fans voting on the TU starting lineup each year.
 
Last edited:
Seems pretty simple, you vote yes if you are in favor of disenfranchising voters and damaging political parties. You vote no if you think democracy and the 1st Amendment right of free association actually means something.
I would only flip the Yes and No.
 
Seems pretty simple, you vote yes if you are in favor of disenfranchising voters and damaging political parties. You vote no if you think democracy and the 1st Amendment right of free association actually means something.

If you think this is a good idea, propose to people being paid full time to advocate for these changes that we adopt the alternative blanket primary system where voters can select any candidate but only the top two vote getters from the top two differing political parties advance to the general. They generally have a fit. All of their concern about voter choice and election economy comes to a grinding halt.

These initiatives are about not only depriving political parties of selecting their candidates, but also about systematically controlling debate. These initiatives are less about reducing partisan behavior and more about party supermajorities stifling debate.

If you favor this, then you favor OSU fans voting on the TU starting lineup each year.
It''s kind of like NIL and free transfers, it makes the whole thing go kind of Helter Skelter. Throws a kink into fundraising, debates, candidates offered to run, etc. People have been pushed in this direction already, when they did some semblance of this legally by changing parties for the primaries in 2020. That's what happens when you let someone reformulate the party iike Trump has.

Since the coaches determine the starting lineup each year, what does it matter who votes on it. 😜
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
I don't see how this disenfranchises anyone. That means taking away the right to vote. Nobody's voting rights are taken away.

The terms "Republican party" and "Democratic party" are nowhere to be found in our constitution either. There is no constitutional recognition of a two-party system. There is also no restriction whatsoever of people gathering and taking collective political action. They would be free to advocate for a particular candidate as a party.

Since I have been 18 I never understood why people could get all tied up in political parties or party politics. Never voted for anyone based on a party. This system seems eminently fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
The one problem with any type of open primary is when members of party “A” vote in party “B”s primary for the most extreme candidate knowing the candidate they actually support has a better chance of beating the extreme candidate. I actually believe this manipulation would be more difficult under the type of primary being proposed here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
The one problem with any type of open primary is when members of party “A” vote in party “B”s primary for the most extreme candidate knowing the candidate they actually support has a better chance of beating the extreme candidate. I actually believe this manipulation would be more difficult under the type of primary being proposed here.
Except they voted in the most extreme candidate in the primary, and he won the election. I'm sure feel Kamala is extreme, but looking at the nominations for cabinet, I argue that is proof that Trump wins out on extreme. That's why it is good that you have to choose whether to vote for extreme in the opposite party, or your pick for preferred candidate in your party.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT