Would the race look different if there were no closed primaries?

[Playball40]

How do you think it would look? Would Sanders be much closer to Clinton? Would it have made a difference in the GOP race? I know my husband did not get to vote as he is unaffiliated, but I heard this morning that Sanders just couldn't win in any closed primary states.

 

[ksen]

Yes, it would look different.

Primaries and caucuses should all be open just like a general election. If you want state funding to help pay for primaries/caucuses then the process ought to be open.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, it would look different.

Primaries and caucuses should all be open just like a general election. If you want state funding to help pay for primaries/caucuses then the process ought to be open.

Primaries/caucuses are paid for by taxes?

 

[ksen]

Aren't they?

I didn't think the parties paid for election places, staff or printing ballots.

edited: don't know how legit this is but here's a link: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5661147_pays-primary-election_.html

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a good reason for closed primaries:

The incumbent has no meaningful challengers.

Now, a bunch of his supporters cross over and vote for the worst opposition candidate.

 

[Blahface]

Yes, it would look different.

Primaries and caucuses should all be open just like a general election. If you want state funding to help pay for primaries/caucuses then the process ought to be open.

The problem I have with that is that I don't want members from the other party participating and deliberately sabotaging the rival party if their own primary has already been wrapped up.

The state shouldn't be paying for any party primary in the first place. We should have a reasonable voting system so we don't have to vote for one of the two default parties.

I've said this a bunch of times, but what I'd like to see is all party primaries replaced with a single non-partisan primary that uses approval voting to elect the top two candidates for the general election. If we did this, all elections would be competitive and there would be no more safe seats.

 

[ksen]

Yes, it would look different.

Primaries and caucuses should all be open just like a general election. If you want state funding to help pay for primaries/caucuses then the process ought to be open.

The problem I have with that is that I don't want members from the other party participating and deliberately sabotaging the rival party if their own primary has already been wrapped up.

Then make it so unaffiliated voters can request either ballot and restrict registered party members to their own party's ballots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's a good reason for closed primaries:

The incumbent has no meaningful challengers.

Now, a bunch of his supporters cross over and vote for the worst opposition candidate.

That hasn't happened yet in states with open primaries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a good reason for closed primaries:

The incumbent has no meaningful challengers.

Now, a bunch of his supporters cross over and vote for the worst opposition candidate.

That hasn't happened yet in states with open primaries.

Evidence?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That hasn't happened yet in states with open primaries.

Evidence?

I saw it in the last document you linked.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How do you think it would look?

I don't know about every state, but in Connecticut, Sanders had a ton more people who viewed themselves as independents voting for him. You can see that in the exit polls. Presumably there also would have been independents who had not registered as Democrats who would feel the same way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That hasn't happened yet in states with open primaries.

Evidence?

You are asking for evidence that something that didn't happen? You are supposed to show cases where an open primary opposition fucked the other party?