Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If We Survive This, Let’s End Open Primaries
There have been four closed contests so far this season: Iowa, Nevada, Oklahoma and Alaska. Notice anything about those? Cruz won three out of four.
I have several thoughts on this. First, it makes me feel better about the Republican Party, as it looks like Trump is winning largely because he’s pulling Democrats and Independents in to vote in the Republican contest (presumably in some combination of actual support and sabotage). Second, it makes me feel better about the chances of taking him down, as we now shift to primarily closed contests (including Florida). Third, it makes me think the Democrats (and, indeed, all of us) should be very afraid if Trump actually gets the nomination. Fourth, it makes me think Ted Cruz is probably the first choice of most actual Republicans.
But mostly it makes me scream into the night: Whose idiot idea was it to have open primaries?!
I’ve always thought this was a terrible idea. The Republican nominee should be just that, the Republican nominee. If you’re an Independent or Democrat, you can decide to support the Republican in the general or not, and Republican voters can take that into consideration when choosing their nominee, but if Democrats and Independents can help choose the Republican nominee, in what sense is he or she even really the Republican nominee?
End open primaries, regardless of the outcome.
Published in Elections, General, Politics
Blaming open Primaries misses the point.
We have good ideas, people should be drawn to us. But they never will be drawn to us as long as we have a significant population that is racist.
I actually did not believe we did. But Trump opened my eyes. For a whole lot of Republicans the word “Conservative” does actual mean “white supremacist”. And when they say Romney isn’t a conservative they mean he is not a racist. When they call someone a RINO or a GOPe they mean they are not a racist.
I believed that was a liberal lie. It is not.
Not every Republican who uses those terms mean that, but a very large portion, the Trump voters, mean that. And that is why Cruz, voters, Rubio voters, and Trump voters are fighting, we don’t mean the same things when we use the same words.
So it has been hard to pin down what people mean by “conservative”, Rino, GOPe… Now we know, for many, those words, have nothing to do with any policy that we think we are talking about. It’s all about race. It’s been frustrating.
I feel like Cruz has pandered to Trump voters by going all in on deportation, but I doubt he meant he actually hated immigrants. Or that he even understood he was pandering to racists. He might as well have not pandered, he’s Cuban, they hate him as much as Rubio, for the same reason.
Why isn’t it acceptable to think that Cruz simply thinks laws on the books should be enforced and not adjusted whimsically by the executive department charged with enforcement?
For what it’s worth, while the Alaska Presidential Preference Poll was closed, they were allowing people to change their party affiliation at the polling places and then vote. I saw some refuse to do this and leave, and saw many others switch. Who those people voted for I don’t know, but Trump did win in my district.
Might we assume that Democrats wanted to vote for Trump – whether out of conviction or as a tactical decision – and managed to get that vote cast?
I’m all for open primaries. I don’t want to be locked in to one or more sets of nasty choices when I can make my primary vote count.
If you were the coach of a sports team, would you let the opposing team have a say in picking your starting lineup?
The nominee should reflect the wishes of the party s/he represents, not the wishes of the opposing party.
I myself have never voted in a primary because I don’t want to align myself too closely with a party and I don’t think I should have a say in the nominee unless I’m willing to align myself with a party.
Elections aren’t a sporting event, nor are should they be restricted party events. Elections are about what the people believe they should be, not what some party decides they should be. Elections are for people to give a voice, not some party an endorsement.
Then (repeating myself, for which I have a talent) it would make sense to have completely open primaries where everyone can vote in all of them, not have to pick only one.
I agree, but the election is in November. Right now we are talking about who should represent the Republican and Democratic parties in that contest. I see no credible argument for giving Democrats a say in who represents the Republican party and vice versa.
General elections are open to all citizens, so citizens can vote for representation. Any citizen can get on the ballot, if he or she meets the rules. The parties’ most important function is to use their infrastructures to get specific people on the ballot and then help them win.
Parties don’t exist in the Constitution. They represent voluntary associations of people to promote particular platforms and particular candidates. Each party’s infrastructure — legal, organizational, IT, etc. — represents an accumulation of time, money, and contributions that people have volunteered for that purpose.
If you don’t like the general election choices, you can always write in your preferred candidate, from either party (or from neither party, for that matter). But party primaries should be internal party decisions. You shouldn’t get to decide how an association directs its resources if you’re not a member.
Primaries are not elections, they are to determine the political party’s candidate preference.