What a tool

[Matthew Hajicek]

Ranked choice is the way.

[Jim at Gentex]

Ranked choice is the way.

Yes, but wishing for that eventually puts us back at square one.

The two-party system is not going to change the two-party system.
(It's like the term limits argument.)

Since the primaries were originally designed for the parties to choose their OWN candidates, I would rather no primary at all than an open primary since an open primary defeats that purpose.

Both parties have become so corrupt that there is hardly a difference anymore anyway.
But as long as we allow the hogs to decide how much food gets put in the trough, nothing will change. 

[beej]

The primaries we have today ensure we get the worst candidates each party can offer because only the candidates who cater to the extremes of their parties base can get nominated.

Open primaries allow the moderate unaffiliated people to have a voice and they won't vote for the people the wackos prefer.

Regardless of who is nominated in California the Democrat is going to win. Same goes for Kansas, the Republican is going to win unless the Republicans go too far off the deep end like they did in the last governors election.

Open primaries are just about the only way I can see this country having sane leadership. But there's no way the parties will allow it to happen.

The candidates that we get are a reflection of us. The system we have has made us a superpower in the world. But Americans might have been better in the past than we are today.

Other systems don't look any better. Israel has had 4 elections in 5 years. Britain is in shambles and so is France.

I saw everything I needed to see in NYC mayor race for ranked choice. that was a disaster.

Open primaries don't do anything to make elected officials less extreme. They make the minority candidates less extreme. The minority party candidates, have to be as close to majority party candidates as possible to have a chance. But the majority party candidates still cater to the extreme's of their party. that's what's happened in California and Washington from what I've observed. Maybe locals there will prove me wrong.  If you had open primaries in Kansas, the only way it would help the democrats there is if they sounded more like republicans.

If we're being honest here. that's the only reason democrats designed those systems in those states. It's not because they want it to be more fair.  The only change that I really see helping is a run-off vote for the times when nobody reaches 50%.

[neurosis]

that's what's happened in California and Washington from what I've observed. Maybe locals there will prove me wrong.  If you had open primaries in Kansas, the only way it would help the democrats there is if they sounded more like republicans.

Isn't Texas an open primary State? I wonder why they decided to go open primary?

[beej]

Isn't Texas an open primary State? I wonder why they decided to go open primary?

OK so, when we were talking about open primaries, I thought we were talking about California's "Top Two Open Primary" where all candidates are listed and the top 2 move on. The open primary version of Texas is the same as my own state here in Missouri, where you can vote for either party without registering with one or the other. I do think that is a good system, but it doesn't seem to change much as far as outcomes.

[neurosis]

where you can vote for either party without registering with one or the other.

That's the only thing that I think about when I think 'open primary'.  I should probably read more in to the differences between open primary elections.

[Matthew Hajicek]

The candidates that we get are a reflection of us.

I don't fully agree with that.  We vote for people based largely on what they promise to do, and even if they had intended to keep those promises, they become corrupted and don't do what they said they would.

I think campaign promises should be legally binding, but of course that would never fly.

[beej]

I don't fully agree with that.  We vote for people based largely on what they promise to do, and even if they had intended to keep those promises, they become corrupted and don't do what they said they would.

I think campaign promises should be legally binding, but of course that would never fly.

I had a pretty good idea who Trump was when he took office. same with Obama. And they pretty well tried to do what they said they'd do, even if they didn't get it done. People also understood who Hillary was and decided not to vote for her. Biden was just what we expected him to be as well. He looked old, lost and tired when he was running for president and that's who he's been as president. But people wanted someone who doesn't Mean-tweet and I guess they got that.

Campaign promises can not be legal binding for obvious reasons. They make promises on what they want to do, but often times for reasons they did not know, can't do it. I have gone through and rewatched old presidential debates and Reagan often said in those debates, this is what I want to do, maybe when I get security briefings and I've got the whole picture, I'll find out I can't.

[Smit]

The candidates that we get are a reflection of us. The system we have has made us a superpower in the world. But Americans might have been better in the past than we are today.

Other systems don't look any better. Israel has had 4 elections in 5 years. Britain is in shambles and so is France.

I saw everything I needed to see in NYC mayor race for ranked choice. that was a disaster.

I agree that the candidates we get are a reflection of the party base.

For example, the base of the Republican party firmly believes (or at least supports) the fantasy that the election was "stolen." So even the candidates who were in the past "moderate" are forced to embrace the  fantasy and be more radical than their opponents to win the bid at a closed primary.

That is why it's clear the closed primary is damaging to this country.

I also think people of the past were better, at least as far as compromising and working together. THAT is what has made this country great.

[mkd]

I agree that the candidates we get are a reflection of the party base.

For example, the base of the Republican party firmly believes (or at least supports) the fantasy that the election was "stolen."

Lol. 2016-2020 Russian collision got trump elected 🤣
 2020 on actual widespread thievery and a swing state boost in the middle of the night and we're all insurrectionists.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣❤️❤️

[Smit]

and we're all insurrectionists.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣❤️❤️

Members of a cult is a better description, imo.

[Jim at Gentex]

That's the only thing that I think about when I think 'open primary'.  I should probably read more in to the differences between open primary elections.

Let's look at history.
The primaries became necessary when multiple candidates from the TWO MAJOR PARTIES wanted to be named as their party candidate for an open seat of any kind, from President all the way down to small town Mayors and School Board members. 
A primary was held in the Spring to see who would represent each party in the General Election in the Fall.

The Primary Election is only a NOMINATING process, period.
Simple enough, right?

The D's chose their candidates for each open seat, the R's chose theirs, then they faced off against each other and the minor party candidates in the November General Election.

The minor parties like Green, Libertarian, Communist, etc. didn't NEED a primary because they usually only fielded one candidate per office anyway.
 
That's how the primary system was designed, and it functioned just fine until people started tinkering with it.

People unaffiliated with any party now wanted a say about who the D's and R's nominated to be THEIR OWN party candidates, which is where the problem started.

Do YOU think a competitor in YOUR field should be able to influence who YOU choose to hire to fill an opening in YOUR company? 
Me neither, and therein lies the problem.

When D's can nominate only D's and R's can nominate only R's, the system works just fine.
But open primaries became open season for gaming the system, and that is still the case today.

D's in open primaries began to cross over and vote for the LEAST appealing R's, and vice versa.
Especially when they felt their top one or two candidates were in good position to secure their party's nomination either way, people began to game the system by picking THEIR OPPONENT for the November General Election rather than picking their own candidate when it looked like their candidate was a lock anyway.

THAT is the downfall of open primaries IMO.
Primaries are either a vehicle for parties to nominate THEIR OWN candidates, or they are useless.

[beej]

Members of a cult is a better description, imo.

that is a fair description of both parties, imo. People just go along with what ever these parties leaders say, even when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of their face. It's not easy to pull yourself away from it and stand on your own 2 legs and decide for yourself what you believe.

Republicans think the election was stolen. Democrats think men can have babies.  Just take a step back and look a the ridiculousness of it all!

[Smit]

Republicans think the election was stolen. Democrats think men can have babies.  Just take a step back and look a the ridiculousness of it all!

Democrats think men can have babies?!?!

Come on Beej. If anybody does think that....it's a pretty damn small percentage.

Republicans who believe (or say they believe) the election was stolen is a large portion of the Republican base.

To quote Rudy Giuliani says, "We have lots of theories, we just don't have any evidence." But a large percentage of people believe it anyway.

[beej]

Democrats think men can have babies?!?!

Come on Beej. If anybody does think that....it's a pretty damn small percentage.

Republicans who believe (or say they believe) the election was stolen is a large portion of the Republican base.

hmmm...so you don't buy into the whole transgender thing, that women can be men and men can be women? I think an awful lot of democrats do, maybe I'm wrong.