Debunking the Election Argument: Closed Contests versus Open Contests

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I've already created two "MyTakes" debunking arguments I've seen from Bernie Sanders, and John Kasich supporters. So, now it's time to pick on the Hillary Clinton supporters. Just like any other Election, I see fallacious arguments from the variety of supporters. Now, it's time to shift back to the Democratic side! Here is some background about me.

-I don't currently support any of the candidates running.

- Again, I could care less who you support: It's the reason WHY you support, or WHY you feel a certain way I'm more curious about.

- I will try to debunk an argument I see used for EACH CANDIDATE'S supporters.

For this "MyTake", I may anger some Feminists-Because I'm attacking a big argument given by the Hillary Clinton supporters-And after the New York Primary, there is no better time to debunk this argument.

The Argument Given by Many Hillary Clinton Supporters: All Contests during the Primary Season should be Closed Contests.

For anyone who doesn't know, a Closed Contest is when solely registered Democrats can vote on the Democratic side, and only registered Republicans can vote on the Republican side(There are also Mixed, and Semi-Closed Contests, but those have complicated rules in which we won't get into). If someone is of another party, or lack thereof, they must register several days prior to the contest. How many days prior to the Contest? That depends on the contest itself.

Anyway, here is why I think every contest should be Open.

Reason One: Voters of all political parties, and independent voters are crucial for the General Election.

I must say, this argument in the first place is hypocritical. First, the Hillary Clinton supporters say they only want Democrats to vote in their contests during the Nomination season, but when it comes to the General Election, they will be begging for independent voters, or voters from another party to support their candidate. I hate hypocrisy.

And they have a good reason to persuade non-Democrats to their side-That could be key to winning the General Election. Independent voters are an increasing voter block, and it is important to win at least 40 percent of them in the General Election. Not to mention they need to persuade all voters of the less popular "third parties" as well. Green Partiers are typically easy to swing to the Democratic side.

So, why prevent them from voting in the Nomination, when you know they will be crucial in the General Election?

Reason Two: Forcing people who aren't a Democrat(or Republican) to change their party preference is a tricky process.

It's a shame many non-Democrats, and non-Republicans have to switch their party affiliation in the first place just to vote in these Closed Contests. However, to make matters worse, there are deadlines, rules, procedures, and confusion, which makes this process a nightmare for non-Political Party affiliated voters. In New York, for example, the contest took place on April 19th, 2016, but people had to switch to the Democratic, or Republican Party by October of 2015! That is ridiculous, and completely undemocratic! Then, there are tricky ballot questions, there is confusing of the way they are worded, and there is even confusion on how to submit the forms, or where to submit them.

The point is: If they were all Open contests, there wouldn't be this mess in the first place.

Reason Three: People may change their mind about being a Democrat, or Republican over time.

I've came across people who have told me they're a registered Democrat, or Republican, but they then admit to me they regret making that decision, and eventually want to change it. So in theory, there are many "Registered Democrat" voting for Hillary Clinton(or Bernie Sanders), and don't even consider themselves a Democrat anymore. In Open contests, I'm sure there were "Registered Republicans" in the same boat, voting for Bernie, or Hillary. So, not only are Closed Contests singling out people, and tricky to register for, but they also paint a false picture that "X number of Democrats/Republicans support this candidate."

For instance, right now, Hillary Clinton is winning Registered Democrats in huge margins over Bernie Sanders. Even though I do agree true Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders, I think these results are misleading, due to the fact many people may have regretted their decision to register as a Democrat.

So, many Hillary supporters claim "Look at who is winning the real Democratic voters", but in all actuality, there is no way to illustrate an accurate assessment here.

Reason Four: Disenfranchising Voters in any Political Contests is unfair.

This is the most important reason to refrain from Closed Contests. Besides the fact all voters are important for the General Election, it's time to face another reality-How can it fair to stop any voter from voting? Everyone of legal age should be allowed to vote! Political parties divide the country, and they have been preventing people to vote in a variety of contests so far. It's a shame that independent voters-Like ME-Or Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Green Partiers, etc have to switch to the traditional Two-Party system to have a say in many Contests. Luckily for me, I live in Ohio-Which has an Open Primary(I didn't vote though).

So, tell me what you think? I know Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders supporters will lavish in this "MyTake."

[becca123]

I think it is high time to get rid of parties, get rid of the electoral college that has many people (myself included) feeling as if their vote doesn't count if they live in a state representing the opposite party, and just let voters vote in a popular vote based on a candidate's merits. Everyone feels that each vote counts. Everyone educates themselves on the candidate. And the best man (woman) will truly win. This allows a mixture of beliefs that may actually unite this divided country.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I completely agree! I'm an independent voter who is fed up with political parties myself.

[Waffles731]

You know, part of me thinks that we should just line every politician and candidate from both major parties against the wall, shoot them and start again.
But then I say, maybe if sanders loses we can

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I say we get rid of the idea of political parties altogether.

[Waffles731]

George Washington warned against them.
He pretty universally loved

[EnglishArtsteacher]

George Washington was probably the best president of all time!

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry, but NO!!!

"Open primaries" allow sabotage voters of one party to go make pee-pee in the other party's voting pool. Lots of chicanery goes on with them.

Less harmful but also pernicious are "Jungle primaries" , where the top two contenders in the primary have a run off against each other in the general, regardless of party. A well entrenched incumbent can have some of his supporters go off and help "choose" the opponent they want. The story of the corrupt weasel Edwin Edwards, who "chose" David Duke to run against him, comes to mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards

Other thoughts:

--Political parties are inevitable. Even in George Washington's day, there were Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, then Whigs vs. Democrats, then Republicans vs. Democrats, with various 3rd parties rising and falling along the way.

--The Anglo-American system of election by district favors two parties (and in the case of the USA, virtually enforces it because the Congressional system means an independent President and not a Prime Minister of a Parliament)

--And that Anglo-American election system is GOOD. The lunacy of the alternative, "proportional voting" systems is documented frightening. Think of the unstable Weimar Republic, where lunatic fringes held the government hostage, and in the case of the Nazis, ultimately took power. Or Italian governments which are always unstable. And is France on its "Sixth Republic" now? Or still just the 5th?

--That said, delegates by state primary (or caucus) SHOULD be awarded proportionally by each candidate within a party, because it is a national contest, not a state Senate race. I am not happy when early, front-loaded winner-take-all primaries mean much of the country is shut out from having a voting choice. Thank goodness 2016 is not like this, as opposed to presidential election years before it, where the conclusion was foregone back in February.

[Red_Arrow]

Now see, you screwed it all up! You presented a logical argument plus a good history to make the point you wanted to make, and completely confused the asker so that he had nothing he could say back to you to support his flawed thinking.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Open Primaries might have their flaws (Like you said), but independents can vote in the General Election, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote in the Primaries.

As far as the delegate situation, I don't think delegates should exist at all: I think it should solely go by the popular vote, so we see how the people truly feel.

But if we're going to have a delegate system, I think we should have a system which correlates with the General Election. In the General Election, every contest is "Winner-Take-All" a far as Electoral Votes go, so I think the Primaries should also be "Winner-Take-All." Why not? We do it that way in the General Election.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@Red_Arrow I agreed with him that Open Contests have their flaws, but independent voters can vote in the General Election, so I don't know why they can't vote in the Nomination process. It's as simple as that.

[Red_Arrow]

The General Election is where people vote for the candidates that have been put forth by the results of the Primaries. It is where the people decide between the candidates that have been put forth by the different parties.

The Primaries are where the different parties vote to see who they are putting forth to the voters at the General Election. The Democrats select the person the want to put forth, the Republicans select who they want to put forth, and any other parties can do the same if they have candidates and enough population to be included in the Primary. During the Primaries it makes no sense for Republican or any other party member to have a say on who the Democrats will decide who to put up for the General Election, and the same for each party. That would be like two debating teams each deciding who they want to represent them for final arguments, but the opposite team steps in and screws the vote up for them.

The General Election is for the general population, so all get to vote. The Primary is for the parties to select THEIR candidate, so that is why it should be for those party members to vote. To use your own words, "It is as simple as that."

I suspect you have no idea that in our early history, it was the states, not the people in the states, but the government, who voted between them as to who would be president. Consider yourself lucky that you have any say.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

Absolutely agree - The presidential election is a general open election which over time has been perverted into the preferred nominations of the Democrat and Republican parties running with 3rd party or Independents perceived to have no chance. It almost makes you wish for a situation to arise where a 3rd party or Independent could be successful just to smash the status quo. While I admire some parts of the American electoral system, this is the one huge flaw I see.
I think Hillary main problem is her "Unelectability" not because she is woman but lets face facts here she just isn't that likeable. She doesn't have the charisma of a "Bill" or "Barrack" candidate. In fact what will probably get her to the White House is people dislike "Donald" more than her.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

You made great points once again!

[Anonymous]

My political affiliation really is irrelevant to my response here. I would like to say that those who are leading or misleading the primaries are the solidified proof that the elect oriole process is beyond flawed , and in reality is a farce. Wool pulled over the citizens eyes with hopes that you will feel like you made a difference with your vote when in reality the cards have already been stacked

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I do think every vote makes a difference. Sure, it's a flawed system-Heavily flawed, but the candidate with the most votes USUALLY wins the Nomination (And General Election).

[Opinion Owner]

Yes they do even if a portion of the vote one party received even if they actually belonged to the opposite party... Unfortunantly

[Anonymous]

Feminist will vote for Hilary just because she's a woman just like the others voted for the current just because he's black. They will go to the polls and blindly cast the ballots not caring one way of the other what direction the country is headed no matter what.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Unfortunately, this is true. I hate when people vote solely on the basis of skin color, religion, or gender.

The funny thing is, Barack Obama isn't even Black-He's Mixed Race, yet, he ran under the "I'm an African-American" platform.

[Opinion Owner]

True they vote in a popularity contest which has nothing to do with running our country and it's not only not ran our country but is has ruined our country. Those knowing nothing about about the candidate they vote for are doing more damage to our country than they would by staying a home.

[brain5000]

I don't mind closed primaries. I think Bernie Sanders probably won Michigan because polls showed Hillary was likely to win, so democrats voted as republicans so they could undermine Drumpf -- and posing as a member of a group with whom you disagree to undermine it is hypocritical.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I agree, Michigan was a fluke. That is my theory on why Bernie Sanders VIRTUALLY TIED (Barely won) Michigan.

Also, the African-American voter turnout was low in Michigan, who tend to favor Hillary Clinton in massive margins.

[QuestionMan]

They should just make all the primaries open save people the trouble of registering.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Right, that was one of my reasons.

[Anonymous]

I think I'd be closer to OK with closed primary if you didn't have to pick your party so far in advanced (in a lot of places). Still open would be ideal. Caucuses bug me though. Thankfully I get a primary.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I agree that if we are going to have Closed Primaries, they should allow people to change their registration.

I also hate Caucuses. They're not fair to people who have obligations during the day.

Where do you live?

[Opinion Owner]

California.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Unfortunately for you, by the time your state gets to vote, the Nomination for both political parties will virtually be over. Your state will technically still "count", but it won't impact the Nomination hardly at all.

[orphan]

what they say during campaign season when speaking.. means very little.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

True.

[Lukapum]

Nice take

[EnglishArtsteacher]

Thanks!