can someone explain to me why open primaries are a good idea?

[ulysses]

In its New Dem Daily post mortem on the recall today, the DLC identifies voter dissatisfaction with a distant and spendthrift (read: too liberal) state government as a primary reason for the recall's success. The writer(s) then go on to, again, push for open primaries as a way to "re-enfranchise moderate and independent voters".

Democrats also need to tend to their own garden and take very seriously the decision of California voters -- who still decisively tilt Democratic in party identification and overall policy views -- to support what began as a nutty right-wing crusade and ended as a popular movement. They need to regain their centrist, problem-solving reputation, and must absolutely reverse the recent perception that they don't give a damn about anybody who doesn't belong to a reliable Democratic constituency group. California voters can help both parties move away from the current polarization by approving a ballot initiative next year that would bring back an open primary system -- re-enfranchising moderate and independent voters, and re-engaging today's isolated parties in a competition to win elections through new ideas and successful governance.

On what planet is this a great idea? How are people, who presumably choose to not be registered as a member of this or that party in a state that requires party registration in order to vote in primary elections, disenfranchised because they can't vote in this or that party's primary?

I mean the question seriously. I want to know if I'm missing the way in which open primaries provide some service to democracy, because from here it seems, coming from Al From and His Merry Band, to be a pretty bald attempt to further silence left voices in the party.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. it isn't a good idea and From is a fucking moron.......

....or simply a right wing Trojan Horse. In any case we need people to get involved in the messy democratic party process and take it back from people like him.

The problem is not if the party is too far left or too far right. To From and his crew it doesn't matter how far the party moves right because they are only in it for the power and the money. However that doesn't mean that every person who is or was a member of the DLC is the same. Al Franken calls himself a DLC Democrat and he is quite an asset to the party as far as I can tell.

The problem is the media, IMO. They will talk about nothing of substance. They will investigate nothing. They mostly shill for republicans and put forward the idea that everything which happens is all due to politics..... As if 15 women molested by the Gropinator was nothing but political dirty tricks. They never just report the news anymore they have to put their idiotic spin on everything.

The problem is not even the stupidity of the american people. How can they fail to be idiots with the information that is doled out to them?

[ulysses]

2. agreed on this

However that doesn't mean that every person who is or was a member of the DLC is the same.

True. That said, I'm not the least bit sure that the organization as a whole would be a great boon to the party or the nation if only From were gone. The left/center divide will continue to be the 800 lb. canary in the living room corner until it's addressed.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Right as usual Cheswick

Media is THE big problem. Arnold won because he's media bred, his wife is connected to the media, and by and large, those that would vote for him, have their news programmed into them.

What else can explain how a media creature who

* knows nothing about politics and finance
* is an alledged serial molester
* has an affinity to Nazi German warleaders
* secretly met (and can't remember) with the nations biggest white collar criminal (but remains unindicted) who bilked California out of billions

can get himself elected to be Governor of California?

The Republicans own the broadcast media and the battle of principles/ideas is irrelevant. That's why we have a morally bankrupt administration incapable of offering up any solution to address the nation's problems. We have witnessed the MacDonaldization of our political culture

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Not having primaries in my country

they look very strange to me - and an open one is ridiculous.

When I first heard of primaries, I assumed that they were just state recognition of the main parties' process for choosing their candidates - ie that you had to be a money-contributing member of the relevant party to vote in its primary. Then I found out you can just register with a party. So then I assumed that this must mean your vote, in the final general election, automatically goes to your party's candidate - but no, you can choose the candidate for one party, then vote for the other - surely a recipe for screwing with you opponents' selection process.

[ulysses]

6. well, sort of

Maybe it's an American thing - group identification and allegiance grafted to an individualistic society. I have no problem with open *general* elections, but open primaries make a mockery of party politics. If your political opponent gets to help determine your political leadership, you're pretty well hosed.

on edit: where are you? Always good to see folks from outside the US on DU. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I'm from the UK

Here, if you pay a membership fee to a party, you get to choose the candidate they put up locally, more or less - it's all organised by the parties. Sometimes there are party rules, as when Labour imposed some 'affirmative action' rules to increase the number of women MPs - which did work, but was stopped as being discriminatory.
The Conservatives never did this, and they think they suffer from always getting white male candidates - the party members, being literally conservative, stick with what they know, even if it's not popular with the electorate in a constituency. So I suppose there might be something in favour of primaries, in terms of getting views representing an area into the selection process.

[ulysses]

16. that's interesting

Thank you. I'll admit to being largely ignorant of how the political system works in the UK, beyond some vague generalities, so your post sheds some light.

Over here, of course, we've always been wedded to the whole "states' rights" thing which, in its turn, has brought about the good, the bad and the indifferent. The good is, yes, the representation of regional views in national politics. That the bad includes the same only adds to the wonder of being American. Would that we could get closer to the individual. God forbid we get closer to the individual. :crazy:

[Classical_Liberal]

4. It's not a good idea

.

[hedda_foil]

5. I HATE these people.

Their very own, corporatist DLC-to-the-bone guy goes down to resounding defeat and they blame the base.

The DLC truly wants Republicans to nominate our Democratic candidates. It's their plan.

There is NO excuse for open primaries.

[ulysses]

7. hi, hedda

It's amazing, isn't it? Some day, a comet will plow into the Earth and that event will, mystically, be the fault of "special interests", "activist elites" and the Democratic base...all one and the same, of course...

[dolstein]

8. Why is it a good idea? Simple

A closed primary frequently leads to candidates who are acceptable to hard-core activists but unacceptable to a majority of the electorate. Just look at what happened in the California Republican gubernatorial primary in 2002. The Republican primary voters thought Simon was just fine and dandy. The rest of the electorate took a look at him and said "are you kidding?" Davis appeared to be dead meat, yet those wonderful, committed, idealistic Republican primary voters managed to nominate someone who was even less appealing.

Even someone like Arnold would have a hard time making it through a closed Republican primary. That probably explains why he jumped at the opportunity to participate in the recall.

[ulysses]

9. and the cure to the great illness

in which the people who actually bother to fucking register and vote determine the party candidate is to allow your opponents to determine your candidate? That's just swell, dolstein. That's nifty. Can you even begin to understand how the "no difference" thing gets traction?

[dolstein]

10. Since when are independents our opponents?

I'm not in favor of opening up Democratic primaries to registered Republicans. But I think it's foolish to exclude registered independents from taking part if they want to, especially if we're going to need independent votes in the general election.

[ulysses]

11. open is open.

Avowed Republicans certainly get to vote in our open Democratic primaries here in Georgia. Ain't it grand? Ain't it just the absolute shit?

I still don't see the great wisdom in having people who can't make up their minds between Dems and Repukes help determine party candidates. I really don't. If they want to help in that determination, let them declare for a party and register. Otherwise, party membership becomes even more meaningless.

[ComerPerro]

12. Its a terrible idea

Because Republicans like to come out and wreck our primaries.

[ulysses]

14. oh, but they wouldn't do that!

Republicans may be misguided or overzealous at times, but they're still our friends! Surely - surely! - they'd never use open primary laws to help elect Democrats who are more to their liking than they might otherwise get from Dem-leaning districts!

</heavysarcasm>

[SharonAnn]

17. Umm, actually, I think Californians rejected a DLC type government

because they elected Arnold who said he was going to put "People first". He said lots of Populist things, no DLC type things, so the voters recalled the DLC type government and elected the Populist (non-DLC type).

[ulysses]

18. well, no.

I don't think that Davis was any great liberal hope, but he *was* reelected a short time ago.