Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
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.
|
I disagree with the notion that it is "undemocratic" to exclude people who did not register for a party in the voting for the party's nominee. To me, that's like saying that it is undemocratic to preclude legal residents, who have chosen not to become US citizens, to vote. And if independents should have the "democratic" right to vote in whatever primary they choose, why shouldn't anyone else?
That said -- it is not necessarily smart to exclude independents from the primaries. Since independents are critical in the general election, there is an argument that the parties would be better off having independents participate in the selection process to help pick the most viable candidate for the general.
Of course, this year would seem to prove that wrong, as Trump isn't the most viable Republican (Sanders' supporters claim that he is the best Dem for a general, but I have serious doubts about that as the GOP has studiously avoided saying anything about him so that he would continue undermining Clinton).
Overall -- I would support anything that would have the nominating contests, particularly in the GOP over the last several election cycles, not push so far to the extremes. In state and district elections, I think opening the primaries helps, somewhat, with that. In the presidential election, I don't really think so -- I think it leads more to people who have just started paying attention voting, and being swayed by the candidate who takes extreme positions and paints everything in black-and-white. Getting rid of the caucuses would be a better solution, in my view.
