Show of HandsShow of Hands

Mattwall1 April 11th, 2016 1:55pm

Super delegates act as a party's check against pure mob will and a protection against insurgency. Causes are nothing but an archaic sham, and open primaries wrongfully give independents a voice in a party process.

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Wes28 CBus
04/11/16 10:33 pm

Agree. I feel as if people don't realize that our government was never meant to be a pure democracy.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
04/11/16 1:50 pm

I think we need primaries to help narrow the field to a manageable number before the general election. I think we need parties to be involved in that process I don't think that, and no we don't need that. Open primaries help mitigate the damage parties, the scourge of our political system, cause while pursuing their own self-serving interests.

PeppyHare Do a barrel roll
04/11/16 12:35 pm

I highly agree with the first statement.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
04/11/16 8:05 am

No caucuses, no superdelegates, no closed primaries.

04/11/16 8:14 am

Same question as below, why should someone that doesn't identify with a party be voting in their primary?

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
04/11/16 9:29 am

Only about 10% of people vote in primaries. 10% of the population shouldn't have the right to decide the only two candidates that have a shot at winning. We live in a two party system.

04/11/16 6:34 pm

No open primaries !!!

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
04/11/16 8:01 am

Disagree with that last bit. All primaries and caucuses should be open.

04/11/16 8:14 am

Why should someone who doesn't identify with a party vote in their primary? It's the equivalent of "the soup tastes horrible and there isn't enough of it"

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
04/11/16 9:06 am

Closed primaries breed a culture of voting for the primary. Open primaries allow more people to be independent and vote their conscience. It's what allows Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnsons to actually stand a chance. It's the best system

04/11/16 9:18 am

Independents voting in a party primary is not the best system. Far from it. It dilutes the voice of the people that actually care about the party in favor of those who can't even bother to identify with a party. There's no more sense in letting independents vote in primaries than letting me vote in a GOP primary-it's not my party, it's not my primary, it's not my interests at stake. And if you really want candidates like Johnson to stand a chance, corrupting the primary system isn't the answer-that lies at the feet of the electoral college and FTPT, not closed primaries.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
04/11/16 9:34 am

Dilutes? I didn't know more input from voters was diluting.. And you get one vote, so if you vote in the GOP primary, then you therefore care whats at stake in the GOP primary. You waste your vote if you vote in a primary you dont care about...

Opening more elections to more people is always good. Open primaries are the more inclusive option that garner more involvement and accuracy.

BeachSt Coastal Virginia
04/11/16 11:04 am

1st sentence of first response should be "breed a culture of just voting for the party not the person"

04/12/16 6:30 pm

If this was the general election, I'd agree, the more the merrier. But this isn't the general election, it's the party nomination process. It makes no sense to have a non party member voting in a party primary. It would be the equivalent of a non citizen voting in a general election.

04/12/16 6:31 pm

General elections need to be as open as possible. But primaries are not the same type of election

Liberty 4,032,064
04/11/16 7:07 am

I would agree with 1 and 3 but not 2.