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
|
I don't think it's "unfair" but I do think it's a little anti-democratic. I tend to want to err on the side of inclusive participation, in part because I think the risks of outsiders and cross-overs heavily influencing outcomes is small if participation is broad, but I get why parties trade off between inclusion and "letting the party decide."
New York has a primary but restricts participation to party registrants. Minnesota has no party registration, but restricts participation by using a caucus with limited hours. Both would probably get "better" (i.e., closer to the mean D voter) results if they opened up more, which I'd advocate, but neither is unjust.
Regardless, there is certainly nothing for the Bernie campaign to complain about in New York, unless he wants to give back some of his Minnesota delegates.
