[subego]

WRT the blanket primary concept, I like the idea on the surface, but I note two of the three states which have them are the states I think of when asked "name some ****ed up states".

[Shaddim]

In terms of politics, I don't think those "open" states are any more screwed-up (or corrupt) than Illinois, with the exception of Florida. One thing you can be sure of, if you're buried near Chicago you'll still be eligible to vote for decades, just so long as your headstone remains legible.

[subego]

Oh yeah. Illinois is ****ed up. No question.

Are we as ****ed up as Louisiana? Not usually.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It works well, despite the tendency for primaries to be participated in overwhelmingly by "true believers" of either party, rather than most voters. The bad thing about the system, which doesn't show in the basic "this is how primaries work in Texas" is that in almost all cases, the primary for the incumbent's party winds up being the election that actually decides the "general election." And booting incumbents, or electing someone to an open seat from a different party from its previous resident isn't particularly common in Texas.

Texas may hold a unique distinction: the home of the most flagrant election fraud ever seen in U.S. politics (like the infamous "box 13" which saw LBJ elected to the Senate), and the most flagrant and widespread efforts at voter suppression imaginable, including our voter ID law, the tortuously gerrymandering of Congressional districts, etc., both of which having been challenged in Federal court for their impacts on inclusive voting...

Originally Posted by subego 

We have the same system in Chicago, and an extreme example of what you're talking about with the primary turning into the general.

If I don't vote in the Democratic primary, I have lost all say in local politics. You can maybe get elected here as a Republican if you run for county sheriff, or county treasurer. That's it. Every other position is filled by who wins the Democratic primary. Half the time they run uncontested in the general.

The problem here is I ain't a Democrat.

See, that's an argument for an open primary. When you're in an area where one party dominates, you lose all say being in the minority party.

[subego]

Do you mean "open" or "blanket"?

[The Final Dakar]

Either would be better.

[subego]

When I'm in an area where one party dominates, I register for that party when I register to vote.

Job's done.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

When I'm in an area where one party dominates, I register for that party when I register to vote.

Job's done.

The system is forcing you to identify as a party you may not agree with. You seem to think this is ok. I ask why someone should have to declare as a party at all. So far your reasoning seems to be because that's the way they run things, and I'm asking why we should accept that. The last thing we should be doing is looking to the parties for political and electoral guidance.

[subego]

I don't think it's okay exactly, I'm just used to it because it's what I've had to do my entire adult life.

Likewise, I've explained multiple times the rationale. When you are talking about the Democratic primary, why is it a surprise one of the requirements is being a Democrat.

It's a little frustrating to have mentioned that a few times and then have you say I'm not presenting an argument.

It's fine if you don't agree, I don't think I even agree, but I am presenting an argument.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think it's okay exactly, I'm just used to it because it's what I've had to do my entire adult life.

Status quo! C'mon subego I didn't think you were like this.

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, I've explained multiple times the rationale. When you are talking about the Democratic primary, why is it a surprise one of the requirements is being a Democrat.

It's a little frustrating to have mentioned that a few times and then have you say I'm not presenting an argument.

It's fine if you don't agree, I don't think I even agree, but I am presenting an argument.

I think I rebutted that its a primary first and a democratic primary second. You're elevating the party status to something higher that that of the actual act of voting.

It's like telling a woman she can't buy a man's shirt to wear because it's a man's shirt. Who the **** cares?! (The obvious answer is the parties do, but who the **** cares what they think outside of representing us?)

[subego]

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but what's your evidence for it being a primary first?

I understand wanting it to be that way, but that doesn't make it so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but what's your evidence for it being a primary first?

Primaries pre-date the parties in question. Obviously at some point the Democratic Primary was created to take part in the already existing primaries. You don't need parties to have a primary (see: open primaries). I'm not seeing any evidence on your part, either, outside of its ****ing name, which correct me if I'm wrong, is circular logic.

[subego]

The analogy I'm thinking of here is if you want to vote in, say, a union politics, you have to be in the union. Primaries and elections predate unions, but there's no claim that's a circular argument.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The analogy I'm thinking of here is if you want to vote in, say, a union politics, you have to be in the union. Primaries and elections predate unions, but there's no claim that's a circular argument.

Comparing political parties to unions. Both are scum!

In this case, though, the union = the country. All I have to be is part of the country to vote.

[subego]

If it's a state without a blanket open (most of them), you only get to vote in a single primary. And how are those primaries split? By party.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not supporting this system, but it feels like you're arguing it doesn't exist.

For better or worse, the outcome of the primary is who the party has to field. I understand a party's desire to keep who's voting buttoned up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it's a state without a blanket open (most of them), you only get to vote in a single primary. And how are those primaries split? By party.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not supporting this system, but it feels like you're arguing it doesn't exist.

No, I'm arguing its a corruption of the system. You're kind of adamant that I'm talking out of my ass (you'd not be mistaken) but in return I'm seeing nothing of substance to support the status quo. I can't seem to suss out where you stand on this. You seem ok with the status quo but in a apathetic or Stockholm syndrome kind of way, and I'm looking for solid facts and reasons why a closed primary system is good or useful in contrast tot he alternatives. Your point about open primaries is valid, but my argument isn't that they're good, just less bad.

Originally Posted by subego 

I understand a party's desire to keep who's voting buttoned up.

I understand it too, but I feel like you're resistant or indifferent to my contempt towards it and it really irks me.

[OAW]

We criticize other countries for their political systems that have a one-party monopoly on power. Yet here in the US we have a political system that's essentially a two-party duopoly on power. Clearly better. But is it best? Rather than trying to fit all Americans into the round and square holes of Dems and GOP … wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate rules that guarantee ballot access to these two parties and put up all kinds of obstacles to other parties?

OAW

[subego]

@Dakar,

There are two separate arguments going on.

1) Blanket vs. everything else.

As I said, it could work. As I also said, I like it on the surface.

2) Closed vs. semi-closed (Chicago being a "semi-closed" example).

I don't see a huge difference between the two. Yes there's a difference, just not a huge one.

If I were in PA, I'd pick a party for primary purposes, even though I'm an independent jackass. This is what I do now, the only difference is when I make the decision, and the procedure involved.

[gradient]

A Canadian's question: Are the primaries not just party elections in which party members choose who will represent them in the general election? To me, that's the way they've always come across in the media. If that's what they are then, Dakar & Shif, I really don't see what the problem is. Here, we have closed party elections but they just aren't publicized in the way the American primaries are.

I've never heard anyone suggest that someone who doesn't belong to a party should be entitled to vote in that party's leadership election and I can't for the life of me figure out why that entitlement would exist, either. Isn't this sort of separation near the core of the party system?

[Shaddim]

Which is why the party system is cock.

[subego]

Originally Posted by gradient 

A Canadian's question: Are the primaries not just party elections in which party members choose who will represent them in the general election? To me, that's the way they've always come across in the media. If that's what they are then, Dakar & Shif, I really don't see what the problem is. Here, we have closed party elections but they just aren't publicized in the way the American primaries are.

I've never heard anyone suggest that someone who doesn't belong to a party should be entitled to vote in that party's leadership election and I can't for the life of me figure out why that entitlement would exist, either. Isn't this sort of separation near the core of the party system?

Can I note one of the people you mentioned has no problem with having to go to this place, show this ID, hop on one foot while juggling to get to vote, but if you need to put in effort for a party primary... oh no, that crosses the line.