Of Duopolies, Independents, and Closed Primaries

[kalm]

Independents now significantly outnumber democrats and republicans, 40% to 30 to 24 http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/ ... filiation/.

Closed primaries are simply a way to perpetuate entrenched power and corporate control. New York's democratic registration deadline of last October was especially egregious. If you have good ideas, you should welcome as many voters as possible.

JSO talks about Trump's problems in the general, but Hillary might not have some of her own come November. Her favorability with indies is plummeting.

It is estimated three million registered voters—about 27 percent of voters—were disenfranchised in New York because of the state’s closed primary system. Independents had to declare their party affiliation by October 19 if they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary. The closed primary system was a source of outrage, which led to a lawsuit which was recently thrown out by a judge..........

In January, Gallup reported the number of Americans, who affiliate as Democrats or Republicans, were near “historic lows.” The number of people, who describe themselves as independents, has risen sharply to four out of ten Americans during the last five years.

Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to support the two-party system. In September, Gallup also released a poll that showed 60 percent say a major third party is needed for “adequate representation.” Seventy-eight percent of independents said there should be a major third party.

More specifically, for example, there are more than one million unaffiliated voters in Colorado, who outnumber Republicans and Democrats registered in the state. Many are part of the millennial generation (which is the generation Sanders continues to win by huge margins).

Closed primaries are a means for the Democratic Party to keep a stranglehold on the voting process and stymie this movement away from the Democratic Party. However, it could backfire tremendously in a general election, when every citizen is able to vote for a presidential candidate regardless of their party affiliation........

“An April Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating among independents had dropped 15 percentage points in the last four months alone,” according to a Wall Street Journal report. “That poll found that 20 percent of independents viewed Mrs. Clinton positively, compared with 62 percent who viewed her negatively—a gap of 42 percentage points.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... -primaries

[kalm]

[OL FU]

I am not a big fan of "centrists" and I realize a lot of people think Clinton is one (and maybe so), but I would be in favor of a credible centrist (not named Bloomberg) running as a third party candidate just to get us past the next four years. Forget politics, let's survive

[kalm]

I am not a big fan of "centrists" and I realize a lot of people think Clinton is one (and maybe so), but I would be in favor of a credible centrist (not named Bloomberg) running as a third party candidate just to get us past the next four years. Forget politics, let's survive

Said the centrist...

[OL FU]

I am not a big fan of "centrists" and I realize a lot of people think Clinton is one (and maybe so), but I would be in favor of a credible centrist (not named Bloomberg) running as a third party candidate just to get us past the next four years. Forget politics, let's survive

Said the centrist...

The main reason I am a centrist is because I have that odd ball mix of conservative fiscal views with liberal social views. If you do the average I suppose that puts me squarely in the middle

[UNI88]

Independents now significantly outnumber democrats and republicans, 40% to 30 to 24 http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/ ... filiation/.

Closed primaries are simply a way to perpetuate entrenched power and corporate control. New York's democratic registration deadline of last October was especially egregious. If you have good ideas, you should welcome as many voters as possible.

JSO talks about Trump's problems in the general, but Hillary might not have some of her own come November. Her favorability with indies is plummeting.

It is estimated three million registered voters—about 27 percent of voters—were disenfranchised in New York because of the state’s closed primary system. Independents had to declare their party affiliation by October 19 if they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary. The closed primary system was a source of outrage, which led to a lawsuit which was recently thrown out by a judge..........

In January, Gallup reported the number of Americans, who affiliate as Democrats or Republicans, were near “historic lows.” The number of people, who describe themselves as independents, has risen sharply to four out of ten Americans during the last five years.

Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to support the two-party system. In September, Gallup also released a poll that showed 60 percent say a major third party is needed for “adequate representation.” Seventy-eight percent of independents said there should be a major third party.

More specifically, for example, there are more than one million unaffiliated voters in Colorado, who outnumber Republicans and Democrats registered in the state. Many are part of the millennial generation (which is the generation Sanders continues to win by huge margins).

Closed primaries are a means for the Democratic Party to keep a stranglehold on the voting process and stymie this movement away from the Democratic Party. However, it could backfire tremendously in a general election, when every citizen is able to vote for a presidential candidate regardless of their party affiliation........

“An April Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating among independents had dropped 15 percentage points in the last four months alone,” according to a Wall Street Journal report. “That poll found that 20 percent of independents viewed Mrs. Clinton positively, compared with 62 percent who viewed her negatively—a gap of 42 percentage points.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... -primaries

First, I do believe that I predicted the bolded part a long time ago. The longer Hilary's in the spotlight, the more she wears on people.

Second, I would like to see a third party but the problem IMO is what platform does the new party coalesce around? There are a lot of people who are disenchanted with the two parties but they are disenchanted for different reasons and I'm not sure if there is enough common ground for a third party to take hold. Also, Trump has pulled some of those centrists into voting in the Republican primaries.

[Pwns]

Independents now significantly outnumber democrats and republicans, 40% to 30 to 24 http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/ ... filiation/.

Closed primaries are simply a way to perpetuate entrenched power and corporate control. New York's democratic registration deadline of last October was especially egregious. If you have good ideas, you should welcome as many voters as possible.

I've been saying we need to blow the primaries the hell open for a while.

Want candidates like Jim Webb and John Huntsman and John Kasich? Open the GD primaries.

[CAA Flagship]

Said the centrist...

The main reason I am a centrist is because I have that odd ball mix of conservative fiscal views with liberal social views. If you do the average I suppose that puts me squarely in the middle

Either that, or you are a wealthy homosexual.

[OL FU]

The main reason I am a centrist is because I have that odd ball mix of conservative fiscal views with liberal social views. If you do the average I suppose that puts me squarely in the middle

Either that, or you are a wealthy homosexual.

If I had any clue where that came from I would respond . Oh wait

[Col Hogan]

Independents now significantly outnumber democrats and republicans, 40% to 30 to 24 http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/ ... filiation/.

Closed primaries are simply a way to perpetuate entrenched power and corporate control. New York's democratic registration deadline of last October was especially egregious. If you have good ideas, you should welcome as many voters as possible.

JSO talks about Trump's problems in the general, but Hillary might not have some of her own come November. Her favorability with indies is plummeting.



http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/ ... -primaries

First, I do believe that I predicted the bolded part a long time ago. The longer Hilary's in the spotlight, the more she wears on people.

Second, I would like to see a third party but the problem IMO is what platform does the new party coalesce around? There are a lot of people who are disenchanted with the two parties but they are disenchanted for different reasons and I'm not sure if there is enough common ground for a third party to take hold. Also, Trump has pulled some of those centrists into voting in the Republican primaries.

Assume we do elect a third party candidate for President...I'd like that...now, we have a President with no organic support in Congress...how's that going to work?

As a country, we need to build a third party from the ground up...before we go for the big enchilada...

[OL FU]

Third party from the ground up isn't going to happen. Most are quite comfortable with their rep. If happens it happens nationally.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't see a problem. The point of having a primary is for a Party to choose its nominee. If you want to be involved in choosing the nominee of a Party, join that Party. I don't see closed primaries as disenfranchising people at all. Anybody can join a Political Party if they want to.

I'm also interested in this thing about Independents outnumbering Democrats and Republicans. The reason is because of what exit polls say about who votes. Like for instance in the 2008 Presidential elections the estimates were 39% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). In 2012 it was 38% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... president/).

So what does all that mean with respect to the Pew Center conclusion that Independents have outnumbered Republicans and Democrats for some time (a link to a 2009 article is provided)? Does it mean that Independents don't vote in as a proportion as either Democrats or Republicans do? If there were more Independents than Democrats in 2012, for instance, why were 39% of people who voted in the 2012 election Democrats vs. only 29% who were Independents?

[UNI88]

I don't see a problem. The point of having a primary is for a Party to choose its nominee. If you want to be involved in choosing the nominee of a Party, join that Party. I don't see closed primaries as disenfranchising people at all. Anybody can join a Political Party if they want to.

I'm also interested in this thing about Independents outnumbering Democrats and Republicans. The reason is because of what exit polls say about who votes. Like for instance in the 2008 Presidential elections the estimates were 39% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). In 2012 it was 38% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... president/).

So what does all that mean with respect to the Pew Center conclusion that Independents have outnumbered Republicans and Democrats for some time (a link to a 2009 article is provided)? Does it mean that Independents don't vote in as a proportion as either Democrats or Republicans do? If there were more Independents than Democrats in 2012, for instance, why were 39% of people who voted in the 2012 election Democrats vs. only 29% who were Independents?

I don't disagree with this but I do have to ask why my tax dollars are used to pay for the primaries. The government should be responsible for running the general election but if the parties want to use the same mechanisms than they should pay the government for the service.

[AZGrizFan]

Said the centrist...

The main reason I am a centrist is because I have that odd ball mix of conservative fiscal views with liberal social views. If you do the average I suppose that puts me squarely in the middle

Except, OL FU, we're not that oddball....the dipshits running the two parties would have you THINK so, but it's just not so...

[JohnStOnge]

I don't disagree with this but I do have to ask why my tax dollars are used to pay for the primaries. The government should be responsible for running the general election but if the parties want to use the same mechanisms than they should pay the government for the service.

That's reasonable. Very reasonable to say that the Political Parties should pay for their own nominee selection processes.

[GannonFan]

IMO, if Independents really want a say in the primary elections, and if both parties are having closed primaries in the state, then the Independents should get together and organize their own primary (closed or open, doesn't matter to me) where they can vote on whomever they want. That would allow them to add their voice to whichever GOP or Dem candidate they like, or conversely, a third party candidate. Granted, it wouldn't be tied to any delegates because it really is up to the individual parties to pick, or determine how to pick, the candidates for their party, but it would be a strong message to both parties where such a growing number of voters are moving towards. The GOP and Dems can do what they want to in terms of picking their candidates to represent their parties, Independents just need to step up and come up with a way to express themselves as well.

[GannonFan]

I don't disagree with this but I do have to ask why my tax dollars are used to pay for the primaries. The government should be responsible for running the general election but if the parties want to use the same mechanisms than they should pay the government for the service.

That's reasonable. Very reasonable to say that the Political Parties should pay for their own nominee selection processes.

That's fine, but really, how much money are the states spending to have these primary elections? And how much money are the two parties spending in these states (in terms of media buys, hospitality spending, etc)? I'm thinking the states are not really going poor by having primaries. I've no problem with parties footing their respective bill, but I'm thinking this is more of a red herring than anything else.

[Ibanez]

I don't see a problem. The point of having a primary is for a Party to choose its nominee. If you want to be involved in choosing the nominee of a Party, join that Party. I don't see closed primaries as disenfranchising people at all. Anybody can join a Political Party if they want to.

I'm also interested in this thing about Independents outnumbering Democrats and Republicans. The reason is because of what exit polls say about who votes. Like for instance in the 2008 Presidential elections the estimates were 39% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). In 2012 it was 38% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 29% Independent (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/result ... president/).

So what does all that mean with respect to the Pew Center conclusion that Independents have outnumbered Republicans and Democrats for some time (a link to a 2009 article is provided)? Does it mean that Independents don't vote in as a proportion as either Democrats or Republicans do? If there were more Independents than Democrats in 2012, for instance, why were 39% of people who voted in the 2012 election Democrats vs. only 29% who were Independents?

You don't see the problem with closing registration in Oct 2015 for an April 2016 vote? You're simply not thinking.

Why should ANYONE join a political party to participate? You bitch about government intervention but then you want to praise closed primaries.

You're all sorts of screwed up. Think it through.

[kalm]

IMO, if Independents really want a say in the primary elections, and if both parties are having closed primaries in the state, then the Independents should get together and organize their own primary (closed or open, doesn't matter to me) where they can vote on whomever they want. That would allow them to add their voice to whichever GOP or Dem candidate they like, or conversely, a third party candidate. Granted, it wouldn't be tied to any delegates because it really is up to the individual parties to pick, or determine how to pick, the candidates for their party, but it would be a strong message to both parties where such a growing number of voters are moving towards. The GOP and Dems can do what they want to in terms of picking their candidates to represent their parties, Independents just need to step up and come up with a way to express themselves as well.

That's the problem with independents though...they lack unity.

(Doing my best Yogi Berra homage)

This reminds me of John Stewart's "radical middle" concept.

[YoUDeeMan]

That's reasonable. Very reasonable to say that the Political Parties should pay for their own nominee selection processes.

That's fine, but really, how much money are the states spending to have these primary elections? And how much money are the two parties spending in these states (in terms of media buys, hospitality spending, etc)? I'm thinking the states are not really going poor by having primaries. I've no problem with parties footing their respective bill, but I'm thinking this is more of a red herring than anything else.

An online independent registration/vote would not cost that much. The gubmint should set aside money to allow independents to have a primary.

[JohnStOnge]

Why should ANYONE join a political party to participate?

Because you're talking about that political party choosing its nominee. I have to admit that I'm astounded that anyone would think that you shouldn't have to be a member of a political party in order to participate in picking that political party's nominee.

I mean, you make a choice. That's fine. If you want to say you don't belong to any political party that's great. But then why should you think you have some kind of "right" to participate in any political party's process of picking its nominee?

[YoUDeeMan]

Why should ANYONE join a political party to participate?

Because you're talking about that political party choosing its nominee. I have to admit that I'm astounded that anyone would think that you shouldn't have to be a member of a political party in order to participate in picking that political party's nominee.

I mean, you make a choice. That's fine. If you want to say you don't belong to any political party that's great. But then why should you think you have some kind of "right" to participate in any political party's process of picking its nominee?

Because we pay for it. Duh.

Want to be exclusive...pay for it all yourself.

[CAA Flagship]

First, I do believe that I predicted the bolded part a long time ago. The longer Hilary's in the spotlight, the more she wears on people.

Second, I would like to see a third party but the problem IMO is what platform does the new party coalesce around? There are a lot of people who are disenchanted with the two parties but they are disenchanted for different reasons and I'm not sure if there is enough common ground for a third party to take hold. Also, Trump has pulled some of those centrists into voting in the Republican primaries.

Assume we do elect a third party candidate for President...I'd like that...now, we have a President with no organic support in Congress...how's that going to work?

As a country, we need to build a third party from the ground up...before we go for the big enchilada...

THIS!!!!!!!!

I have been saying this for a while now. The third party needs to begin in the minor leagues before getting up to "The Show".

[kalm]

Assume we do elect a third party candidate for President...I'd like that...now, we have a President with no organic support in Congress...how's that going to work?

As a country, we need to build a third party from the ground up...before we go for the big enchilada...

THIS!!!!!!!!

I have been saying this for a while now. The third party needs to begin in the minor leagues before getting up to "The Show".

Why is organic support in the congress a must?

[JohnStOnge]

Because you're talking about that political party choosing its nominee. I have to admit that I'm astounded that anyone would think that you shouldn't have to be a member of a political party in order to participate in picking that political party's nominee.

I mean, you make a choice. That's fine. If you want to say you don't belong to any political party that's great. But then why should you think you have some kind of "right" to participate in any political party's process of picking its nominee?

Because we pay for it. Duh.

Want to be exclusive...pay for it all yourself.

You know I think it'd be great if we said that no public funds can go into Parties choosing their nominees. If we did that we'd have parties choosing their nominees through regular party processes and we wouldn't have that abomination we have as Republican Party nominee right now.