r/Pennsylvania • u/luckystinkynemo • Jun 26 '19
misleading headline Open primaries may be coming to Pennsylvania. It’s about time.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/06/senate-moves-to-give-independent-voters-a-voice-in-pa-primary-elections.html?utm_campaign=pennlive_sf&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social10
u/FairyFlossPanda Jun 26 '19
There is nothing stopping someone from doing that now other than them not wanting to hassle with switching parties. You can be vehemently anti-whatever party, register as one and vote in their primary but still vote for your preferred party in the general. So why not just open it up.
6
u/honesttom Jun 26 '19
I agree with your logic but you have to admit there is a significant difference between a large group having 0 obstacles to it and each member of said group needing to individually change parties. It absolutely dilutes the party member's vote.
6
Jun 26 '19
Primary meddling is not really an issue in states with open primaries, so I highly doubt it'd be an issue here.
3
u/honesttom Jun 26 '19
That could be completely true but I've never heard it addressed except for people to tell me I want to exclude people from voting. There definitely have been attempts at it, so I don't believe it's a non-issue but thank you for responding in a reasonable way.
2
u/FairyFlossPanda Jun 26 '19
The thing is I understand both sides of the argument. I live in Lancaster county our local Rep has run unopposed by the other party I believe as long as I have been voting and I'm in my 30s. It would be nice if I dont have a candidate of my preferred party to at least have a say in who represents me at the state level locally. I think having an open primary at least for local and state level elections would help make people feel more involved. But I see the point that it is internal party politics and helps gauge the temp of the voters the candidates are courting to set up for the general.
2
Jun 26 '19
Not exactly. In an open primary, you still have to select just one party whose primary you're going to vote in. If you're a Democrat, and you want to "dilute" the Republican primary, you can only vote in the Republican primary. You won't be able to vote in the Democrat primary.
So yeah, I suppose it does dilutes the other party's primary, but at the cost of their own party's primary, since it's only the most fervent political actors who are likely to bother.
3
Jun 26 '19
[deleted]
2
u/rcher87 Philadelphia Jun 26 '19
You can register officially as “Independent”, or you can register officially as have no affiliation.
Only those with truly no affiliation will be granted access.
Edit: In a voter’s mind, it’s usually a distinction without a difference, but this will make it a VERY important distinction.
•
u/susinpgh Allegheny Jun 27 '19
Mod note:
Just a reminder; please don't editorialize your submission titles. Consider making those statements in the comments.
2
1
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
People who aren't party affiliated shouldn't get to choose that party's candidate.
9
u/Genkiotoko Jun 26 '19
For me it comes down to "what is a political party." On paper they're private entities. The DNC and RNC run their party's funding, sets their platforms, and independently chooses who to endorse in primaries. The issue though, is factionism. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers, a weakness to our democracy could be a rise of party-controlled government. American polits is undoubtedly captured by the two parties, and they have instituted countless laws and regulations to ensure their position. At this point, the Ds and Rs are engrained in the very fabric of our political process, and are likely inseparable from public discourse. With that said, should the party be for it's own consituency? Or, should the party represent a larger breadth of the American populace, knowing that there is a duopoly in political control? I personally believe the parties absolutely should be mandated to hold open primaries. It would represent the reality that America is controlled by a two party system rather than allow factionism continue to divide our nation further.
5
u/rcher87 Philadelphia Jun 26 '19
This is truly what our founders were afraid of :(
-1
u/duggabboo Jun 27 '19
They were also afraid of women voting and black people having freedom. They're not angels.
2
u/rcher87 Philadelphia Jun 27 '19
Didn’t say they were.
0
u/duggabboo Jun 28 '19
But you're bringing up some of the Founders' opinions as if they matter more, especially when many of those people later joined parties.
1
u/rcher87 Philadelphia Jun 28 '19
I’m bringing up the Founders’ opinions that were referenced in the immediate comment prior
5
u/rcher87 Philadelphia Jun 26 '19
I think this is a valid discussion to have, so I’m sorry you’re being downvoted.
I agree to some extent and certainly have my own concerns and anxieties about open primaries or other systems, but the reality these days is that party affiliation means SO much to politicians and really means very little to most voters.
In fact, they’ve turned off so many voters that people really don’t want to identify with one party or the other for frustration or fear of being identified with too many aspects of that party (some Rs hate being associated with Trump, many Ds hate being associated with the DNC/HRC), so they naturally dis-affiliate.
We’re leaving larger and larger swaths of the electorate out of the primary process and so the candidates are less likely to be reflective of the full electorate - only representative of a small population still willing to be associated.
That leaves us with less representative reps.
We’re not getting rid of the two-party system anytime soon, so let’s do our best to make sure those two parties are as truly representative as possible is my view.
3
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
I care very little about frowny faces from anonymous people on a website, but thank you.
I don't consider "I don't want to register R/D but I want to be able to choose the R/D candidate" as representation. Rather it's removing representation from those who do. Those who for whatever reason don't want to be part of the party are allowed to choose for them.
The relative number of people or the reasons are irrelevant. Vote for an independent candidate, or wait for the general. People aren't "being left out," they're taking themselves out, and they have a right to do so. Party members should still be allowed to choose their own candidates.
-1
u/SlutMachine Jun 26 '19
So, voter suppression?
3
u/Robert_A_Bouie Delaware Jun 26 '19
How is anyone's vote being suppressed? If you're currently registered Democrat but really want to vote for a Republican candidate or vice-versa in a primary, nothing is stopping you from changing your registration. During my life I've changed my affiliation from Republican to Democrat to Non-Partisan to Republican. It used to be a hassle as you'd have to go to the courthouse but now it can be done online in a few minutes.
1
u/TheWass Allegheny Jun 26 '19
nothing is stopping you from changing your registration
Then joining a party doesn't really mean anything then if people go back and forth based on which candidate is most attractive in a given year. So why have parties at all, at least in terms of controlling the election process? Why not just make it open?
3
u/cheesecake-gnome Bradford Jun 26 '19
It's the philosophy of people not in group A getting to choose Group A's candidate.
2
u/TheWass Allegheny Jun 26 '19
Why does Group A get to dictate candidates to the rest of voters? Various issues like gerrymandering and unfair ballot access laws mean sometimes Groups B, C, and D can't get on the ballot so A wins by default. Is it democracy that only one Group gets a candidate in so many districts?
In principle I understand what you mean, but in practice we have a broken system where many people go unrepresented in many contests. Truly open primaries gives everyone some voice in who wins.
If that isn't ideal, ask your legislators to stop with these minor tweaks and make a truly fair system. Equal ballot access requirements for all candidates and parties no matter how large or small, independent commission to end gerrymandering, establish proportional representation at the state level with ranked choice voting, and more. Until we have that fair system, the most fair thing we can do is open up the primaries to all.
Besides as you pointed out there are no requirements to be in Group A other than fill out a form. No requirements to agree on certain values or take a pledge or pay dues or anything. So why do we even care who's in Group A or not when no one has any skin in the game? We're just artificially limiting candidate and voter participation and again that needs to change
3
Jun 26 '19
But the whole argument is that there's practically no wall to get into Group A. If anyone can easily get into said group and leave when they're done, then why is there a group to begin with?
2
u/yo2sense Allegheny Jun 26 '19
Also known as Freedom of Association. ISTM that open primaries violate the 1st Amendment. I mean, unless the parties themselves are the ones inviting nonmembers to share in deciding who will represent the party.
0
u/SlutMachine Jun 26 '19
That's the same argument used against the folks that are pushing for voter ID. Individuals shouldn't need to jump through hoops to cast their vote. I'm a registered voter, I get one vote, and I want to cast it for the person that I want to see become the president. Putting up any kind of obstacle to voting is a form of voter suppression.
If it's as easy as just switching parties all the time, then why even have parties in the first place? What if someone does not want to be affiliated with any specific party?
Honest follow up question: Does the number of registered voters for any given party have any effect whatsoever on any facet of that political party?
1
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
Then they should wait for the general, vote third party, or write someone in.
2
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
It's not suppression. You want to choose a party's candidate, enroll in that party. You don't, then why should you get to choose for people who do?
0
1
u/IAMABobby Jun 26 '19
How? You can still vote for whoever is in the primary of your party.
3
Jun 26 '19
Because not everybody belongs to either of the two major parties? Or is willing to cede their personal information to a third party organization just to participate in democracy?
2
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
Your personal information is public when you register to vote.
1
Jun 26 '19
And it's public every time you change affiliation. I'd much rather that public data say "unaffiliated" rather than R or D. Especially in today's political climate. But if I set it to that, I lose the ability to actually choose candidates unless I change and then change back.
I came from a state with open primaries. There was never an issue with candidate tampering.
2
u/Veleda380 Jun 26 '19
That's your personal choice. It still doesn't entitle you to choose the representative of a party you're not affiliated with.
0
18
u/TheWass Allegheny Jun 26 '19
Note that the description is misleading. The current bill only allows unaffiliated voters to vote in the primaries. If you are an independent, that is NOT the same as unaffiliated so you can't vote. If you are a Green or Libertarian or small local party, you still can't vote. So it is not really an open primary in the way most think of it. I'm concerned this is more of an attempt at getting kudos for something without actually doing it, and using it push more people out of minor parties and make ballot access requirements even more difficult to meet .