Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Can someone fill me in on why people think it's unfair to restrict voting in Democratic primaries to registered Democrats (freezing out Independents)? I understand why someone would think it was unfair to keep people from switching their registration, but if you are an Independent, aren't you essentially saying you don't to be involved with one party? Or is the argument that they should have the freedom to influence whatever party they're leaning towards that year?
TM
|
In good pb fashion, I won't answer your question but make a comment on it instead.
The debate we always had when I was a party minion was whether it helps more to build the party to make people join if they want to vote in the primary or to have them take the lesser step of identifying with the party by voting in its primary even if not a member. I like what we have in Mass. - it's an open primary, but once you take a ballot you become registered in the party and have to unregister if you don't want to be part of it.
To me, the question is not "what's more democratic" - that is silly, there is nothing undemocratic about a party nomination being made by party members - but "what builds the party better". Of course, if you have no commitment to the party, you don't like my question.
But what's going on now isn't about what anyone thinks the right answer is. It is just about what Bernie can whine about in hopes of finding some traction. It's just political gaming.
