Well said Ms. Carabetta.
Independent voters would be able to vote in the primaries instead of being locked out.

Open primary is definitely the way to go because no voter who is truly educated about the issues & candidates can in good conscience stick with a single party. We should all be "independents" at the polls because if we're not, then we're just blindly supporting a party ideology & not truly performing our duties as citizens to make informed decisions.

People have the right to organize into parties, and party members ought to have the right to elect who represents them in an election.

Yeah, we should be like California... right. Then the Republican party of PA can nominate governors like the Terminator.

Honestly think this one through. During Presidential primary season where only one party is going through the nomination process, do you think it'd be only people with the best interests of the party in mind going to the polls?

It's called strategic voting. Voting for a candidate in an opposition party that you think will be the weakest show against the candidate you favor in a general.

Do you read the letters that get published here every day? Do you honestly want liberals like that to be walking into the voting booth in the spring to vote for a candidate they can't wait to vote against in November?

This knife cuts both ways. Keep it closed.

Johnny

Nineteen states have open primaries for all elections -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. Two others -- Louisiana and California -- have open primaries for all elections except presidential. If all these other states are able to make it work, why can't Pennsylvania?

Johnny - I agree with the principle of what you're saying but I disagree that closed primaries prevent it. It's simple enough to change your registration prior to the primary & do that in a closed system. I know people of both parties who do it specifically for the reason you cite so I don't think the closed system prevents it in any way. If anything it perpetuates the sabotage because they have no reason to change their registration so once the next primary comes around, they do it again simply because they're already registered in the opposition party.

For those of you advocating open primaries, why have primaries at all then? Just have a general election every two years. That's really what you're advocating which will suit the Democrats just fine with their beloved "permanent campaign" strategy.

Dear PghGirl412, I know we don't always see eye-to-eye, but your post at 10:07 AM "hits the nail on the head." Well done!

What about shortening the primary season?

It seems that when states that are not really representative of the country as a whole whose primaries are held very early in the year, their voters are much more influential in selecting a national candidate than other states (like Pennsylvania) whose primary is not until much later.

By the time their voters get to the polls often a candidate has already been selected.

bigmack, you also make an excellent point! While I suspect most of us would agree that a campaign season needs to be long enough in order to "vet" candidates' views and backgrounds adequately -- how do you feel about it perhaps starting in late Spring of the election year? -- it has totally gotten out-of-hand, what with the Ames, Iowa straw poll held in Summer of the previous year. At this point, the only ones who profit (literally!) from the current system are the professionals who run these really long candidates' campaigns, the ad agencies who make all the commercials, and the media who sell the time or space to run them.

For those of you advocating open primaries, why have primaries at all then? Just have a general election every two years.

Not an entirely bad idea, Joe! However, what if no candidate receives a majority (at least 50% + 1) of the votes? Would you agree that a run-off election would then need to be held? The letter-writer's proposed system where the top two vote-getters, irrespective of party affiliation, run against one another in the general election is essentially the same idea. May we count you on-board with this idea?

PghGirl412 is correct and I agree 100% I can't address this issue any better then that! Well said PghGirl!

Thanks, minx & suss. I also agree that no primaries at all would be fine. No party on registration, just open voting in a runoff system. If we do away with folks just pulling the red or blue lever, it wuld be a huge leap towards solving some of our biggest problems in every level of gov't.

written by little_minx, February 16, 2012 - 10:53 AM May we count you on-board with this idea?

Permission *DE*-nied!

Has anybody, other than me, considered why we have primaries in the first place? Hmmm?

Gorilla,

That also means that 31 states are doing fine with closed primaries.

Closed primaries give parties an opportunity to define what it is they believe ideologicakky. With open primaries, you get a more muddled message.

If we had national open primaries, do you think our current President would have gotten the nomination?

And look at our last Senate race, you had a very clear ideological distinction between the candidates, and voters got a clear choice of direction at the general election.

I dont know about you, but nothing excites me to go out of my way to vote more than a choice between two candidates that are barely distinguishable.

If we do away with folks just pulling the red or blue lever, it wuld be a huge leap towards solving some of our biggest problems in every level of gov't.

Super PACS would never permit that.

You would be eliminating their venue to shoving the pols deeper in their pockets.

For those who fail to pick up on that comment, it was written in Bunda-esque style.

That also means that 31 states are doing fine with closed primaries.

Sure. The point is that you're greatly exaggerating the downsides of strategic voting in open primaries.

written by Racer, February 16, 2012 - 03:24 PM Super PACS would never permit that.

Especially this one: http://tinyurl.com/7nc6kjl

You, comrade Racist, should glean great mirth and merriment from the utterly risible line “We can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Messina wrote."

God knows I gleaned great mirth and merriment from this incoherent sentence:

You would be eliminating their venue to shoving the pols deeper in their pockets.

For those who fail to pick up on that comment, it was written in Bunda-esque style.

Sure it was, comrade Racist. This passes for wry "humor" amongst you lefties?

BTW--The word "comrade" has been around since the late 16th century. Lots of people use it, in other words. Even Lee Atwater did. I suggest you sharpen your forensic skills; they clearly are in need of prodigious improvment, my dear, beloved comrade.

Exaggerating because you say so...

Thanks for your kind words little_minx.

With almost total political coverage on the radio and TV as well as in the newspaper and internet, having primaries start in late Spring of the election year should give the voters plenty of time to evaluate where the candidates stand on important issues as well as uncover any obvious skeletons in their closets; I also agree with the balance of your post as well.

Exaggerating because you say so...

No, because it's common sense. If strategic voting in open primaries was such a hot button issue, you'd think some of the 21 states that allow it would be closing their primaries.

Is it 19 or is it 21?

Or perhaps I'm not exaggerating, because the other 31 or 29 states have closed primaries.

You saw what I'm describing in 2008 from both sides. John McCain won in states with open primaries like New Hampshire, but within that vote lost the majority of self-identified Republicans. The same thing happened in South Carolina, a candidate Republicans did not vote for won their states Republican primary.

And then, that candidate got spanked in the general. It was those early primaries like NH & SC that put McCain out front. He secured the nomination by March.

In incumbent cycles like this year, it allows votes from the incumbent party to essentially vote for the guy they'll vote against that November. A few percentage points in a primary is enough to sustain a campaign or doom it to failure, those votes are influential.

I looked into it, and I would actually support what California does. They don't dictate to the parties whether or not it will be open or closed, they allow the party to have the option of what it will be. That's fine with me.

Maybe it's just me, but there's something essentially wrong with getting to help pick the players on the oppositions team - that seems like common sense.

A primary is a party's chance to decide who it is and what they represent, an open primary doesn't achieve that.

I'm not someone that just absolutely loves the Republican party, but I register with it because it's the party that, in general, most closely represents my beliefs. When I vote in a primary, I vote to nudge the party in the direction I wish to see it go.

To Democrats, you don't want someone like me voting in your party primary, because you won't like where I want to nudge it.

To Independents, I respect that you don't want to be assigned a party label, but I have a really hard time believing that when looking at the two parties, you just have no clue on who you lean towards. And if you are so indecisive, a party primary probably isn't the place for you to be voting.

You know why there isn't an "Independent" party? Because it doesn't stand for anything, there's no platform, there's no core system of values & beliefs. Unless you want an election between Jack Johnson vs. John Jackson, you need primaries to be about personifying a party's values in a candidate so that the country has a clear choice to actually made come the general.

Is it 19 or is it 21?

Can't you read? My first comment stated 19 have open primaries for all elections, and two more states have open primaries for all elections except presidential.

John McCain won in states with open primaries like New Hampshire, but within that vote lost the majority of self-identified Republicans. The same thing happened in South Carolina, a candidate Republicans did not vote for won their states Republican primary.

John McCain won because Republican primaries, for the most part, were winner-take-all affairs in 2008, so squeaking out a 20% plurality victory in a multi-candidate race won him all the delegates. After the first few states he became the "inevitable" candidate. Also in his favor was the fact that most of the other candidates were hard core conservatives that split the hard core conservative vote while McCain won the moderate and independent vote. That was enough to get him through.

Besides, the Democrats had a pretty bitterly fought primary in 2008 themselves. If you honestly think that large numbers of Democrats were crossing party lines to gum up the works in the GOP primaries instead of voting for Obama or Clinton then I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my time talking about this with you.

The rest of your comment is largely an appeal to fairness, that there's something wrong with voting in the other party's primary. Fair enough. I agree it's unfair. I just don't think it actually affects the outcomes that much. How motivated are most people really going to be to vote for someone in the other party that they think might be an easier candidate to beat? I certainly couldn't be bothered to do so. Voting's a nuisance. I have to go out of my way to the poll and perhaps stand in line for a while depending on the time of day. I'm willing to do that for my preferred candidate but to go out of my way to sabotage the other party? You're pretty cynical if you truly believe large numbers of people are willing to do that.

Gorilla,

The fact is that in 2008, John McCain failed to win a single solitary primary with a majority of registered Republicans until Super Tuesday. In both New Hampshire and South Carolina, he won those races in total votes because more people who were outside the party voted for him than inside the party. Now my memory isn't that bad yet, but I clearly remember McCain being sold as a moderate Republican who could reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. In other words, he was the least-Republican Republican.

And because it was winner-take-all, by the time Super Tuesday rolled around he was the perceived front-runner. And as you know, in primaries perception of a candidate usually translates into reality. I'm at least glad we've gone to proportional races now to mitigate some of those effects.

Of course that all disappeared in the general, when Mr. Gang-of-14 became "Bush v2.0".

And when McCain wrapped up the nomination months before President Obama, I clearly remember discussion of Republicans talking about conducting strategic voting between Clinton & Obama. Now admittedly, a lot of those problems can be solved by states passing laws on how far out one can change their party registration - but that only has an effect if its a closed primary.

You asked:

How motivated are most people really going to be to vote for someone in the other party that they think might be an easier candidate to beat?

I remember Rush Limbaugh advertising his "Operation Chaos" and raising all kinds of hell just doing that. I don't listen to Rush, and I sure as heck didn't agree with that kind of election manipulation.

Your run of the mill voter won't be bothered to do it, but the more organized and ideological elements of both sides certainly do think strategically. To believe otherwise would be naive.