Oklahoma Close Primaries

[ARGUS]

OKLAHOMA Closed Primaries suck. It should be that one could VOTE for whomever he please nevermind his political party. Who agrees or dis agrees and why please.

[Townsend]

I agree.  Our choices are too limited.  

I had to join a party I hardly agree with to be able to vote for the least disagreeable candidate in that party in the primary.

[Wrinkle]

Open Primaries to allow non-party members to vote for the candidate the Party wishes to represent them and their platform ceases to make it a Party event.

If allowed, expect Parties to have "Pre-Primary" events to do the same. Then you can complain about not getting to vote in those.

Opening Primaries to non-Party voting is like opening the General Elections to anyone who wants to vote, including illegal aliens, or those across the pond.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Open Primaries to allow non-party members to vote for the candidate the Party wishes to represent them and their platform ceases to make it a Party event.

If allowed, expect Parties to have "Pre-Primary" events to do the same. Then you can complain about not getting to vote in those.

Opening Primaries to non-Party voting is like opening the General Elections to anyone who wants to vote, including illegal aliens, or those across the pond.

There shouldn't be parties to begin with.

[sgrizzle]

The point s for each party to pick who they want to represent them.

I agree with the above though, the bipartisan format sucks.

[Breadburner]

I agree....

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Open Primaries to allow non-party members to vote for the candidate the Party wishes to represent them and their platform ceases to make it a Party event.

If allowed, expect Parties to have "Pre-Primary" events to do the same. Then you can complain about not getting to vote in those.

Opening Primaries to non-Party voting is like opening the General Elections to anyone who wants to vote, including illegal aliens, or those across the pond.

There shouldn't be parties to begin with.

That's a pretty absurd statement.
So long as there are people, they will develope alliances towards common causes.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The point s for each party to pick who they want to represent them.

I agree with the above though, the bipartisan format sucks.

The event need not be a public election at all. It was decided that since we tend to a two-party system, it best handled by the election board, having each Party put their options up for vote by their members.

It makes sense. And, will happen regardless of the public aspect of it as now.

What sense does allowing non-Party (i.e., those who openly disagree enough with the Party's platform to not join) to determine who represents the Party's platform in the General Election (in which all persons vote)?

If you wish to be Independent, then be so. But, don't crash other's party. Or, better than that, put up your own primary. Then you can vote as to who represents your interests.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The point s for each party to pick who they want to represent them.

I agree with the above though, the bipartisan format sucks.

The event need not be a public election at all. It was decided that since we tend to a two-party system, it best handled by the election board, having each Party put their options up for vote by their members.

It makes sense. And, will happen regardless of the public aspect of it as now.

What sense does allowing non-Party (i.e., those who openly disagree enough with the Party's platform to not join) to determine who represents the Party's platform in the General Election (in which all persons vote)?

If you wish to be Independent, then be so. But, don't crash other's party. Or, better than that, put up your own primary. Then you can vote as to who represents your interests.

Nope, I was an independent for years.  I joined a party to vote in the primary due to Oklahoma's election laws.  So now I'm pirating someone's party.  I'm in their fridge drinking their beer.

[waterboy]

Open primaries don't make any sense. Kind of like me agreeing with Wrinkle. Doesn't make sense...but there it is.[]

More parties allowed into the process would probably be more satisfactory to those outside the two party system. We could make it easier to allow that. Only problem is you end up with hopelessly splintered politics with leadership going to less than majority winners.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The point s for each party to pick who they want to represent them.

I agree with the above though, the bipartisan format sucks.

The event need not be a public election at all. It was decided that since we tend to a two-party system, it best handled by the election board, having each Party put their options up for vote by their members.

It makes sense. And, will happen regardless of the public aspect of it as now.

What sense does allowing non-Party (i.e., those who openly disagree enough with the Party's platform to not join) to determine who represents the Party's platform in the General Election (in which all persons vote)?

If you wish to be Independent, then be so. But, don't crash other's party. Or, better than that, put up your own primary. Then you can vote as to who represents your interests.

Nope, I was an independent for years.  I joined a party to vote in the primary due to Oklahoma's election laws.  So now I'm pirating someone's party.  I'm in their fridge drinking their beer.

I've seen you in the beer commercials.
I think party-protocol allows hanging.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Open primaries don't make any sense. Kind of like me agreeing with Wrinkle. Doesn't make sense...but there it is.[]

More parties allowed into the process would probably be more satisfactory to those outside the two party system. We could make it easier to allow that. Only problem is you end up with hopelessly splintered politics with leadership going to less than majority winners.

Independents have just as much right to put up their own primary if they choose to do so.

As does any new party formed for such purpose.

Demanding to participate in someone else's party just because you feel left out is a choice you made. (not you WB, whomever registers as Independent, or whatever other party).

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Open primaries don't make any sense.

I agree.  Closed primaries make sense to me.  In my opinion, the purpose of the primaries is for members of each party to select their candidate for the general election;  Demos only should vote to choose the Demo candidate and GOP only should vote to choose the GOP candidate.  If it is that important to you to vote in a primary, then be a party member.  You can always switch party affiliation periodically if you desire, as I have done once in the past.

Any registered voter can vote in the general election for whatever candidate they want.  I think closed primaries make perfect sense.