Party Registration

[Belsnickel]

So there has been a bill introduced in my state legislature by my state senator (whom I loathe) that would require party registration. It is an effort to allow the parties to close their primaries in the state. My issue with party registration is that it does not equate to party membership, all it does it cause people to further identify with parties and increase divisiveness. If a party wants only their "members" involved then go with a convention or something, but party registration, to me anyway, is a pointless tool.

What do you all think? If party registration means nothing beyond a political party being able to close their primary, do you think it should be used?

[*wildcats forever*]

I'm against anything that results in closed primaries.

[Rotobeast]

(12-30-2016, 10:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So there has been a bill introduced in my state legislature by my state senator (whom I loathe) that would require party registration. It is an effort to allow the parties to close their primaries in the state. My issue with party registration is that it does not equate to party membership, all it does it cause people to further identify with parties and increase divisiveness. If a party wants only their "members" involved then go with a convention or something, but party registration, to me anyway, is a pointless tool.

What do you all think? If party registration means nothing beyond a political party being able to close their primary, do you think it should be used?

That's some BS.
Heck, we're just trying to get the Libertarian Party re-recognized by the state of Ohio.
Conniving D's and R's, anyway.

 http://ballot-access.org/2016/12/30/u-s-supreme-court-puts-libertarian-ohio-case-on-conference-of-january-6-2017/

[*bfine32*]

I think the reasoning behind the closed primary is so there isn't an attempt to subvert the opposing party. I do think all primaries should be like the general. Both parties on the same ticket and only one vote. No Dem primary this week and GOP next.

[Benton]

(12-31-2016, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the reasoning behind the closed primary is so there isn't an attempt to subvert the opposing party. I do think all primaries should be like the general. Both parties on the same ticket and only one vote. No Dem primary this week and GOP next.

agreed and agreed.

we're closed in Kentucky. For the most part, its led to a lot of Dino s (Democrats in name only) because in a lot of areas in the state, its about the only way to get elected as a lot of folks view may as the election and November for when you go vote for Mitch McConnell

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-30-2016, 10:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So there has been a bill introduced in my state legislature by my state senator (whom I loathe) that would require party registration. It is an effort to allow the parties to close their primaries in the state. My issue with party registration is that it does not equate to party membership, all it does it cause people to further identify with parties and increase divisiveness. If a party wants only their "members" involved then go with a convention or something, but party registration, to me anyway, is a pointless tool.

What do you all think? If party registration means nothing beyond a political party being able to close their primary, do you think it should be used?

(12-30-2016, 10:51 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I'm against anything that results in closed primaries.

(12-30-2016, 10:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: That's some BS.
Heck, we're just trying to get the Libertarian Party re-recognized by the state of Ohio.
Conniving D's and R's, anyway.

 http://ballot-access.org/2016/12/30/u-s-supreme-court-puts-libertarian-ohio-case-on-conference-of-january-6-2017/

(12-31-2016, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the reasoning behind the closed primary is so there isn't an attempt to subvert the opposing party. I do think all primaries should be like the general. Both parties on the same ticket and only one vote. No Dem primary this week and GOP next.

(12-31-2016, 01:34 AM)Benton Wrote: agreed and agreed.

we're closed in Kentucky. For the most part, its led to a lot of Dino s (Democrats in name only) because in a lot of areas in the state, its about the only way to get elected as a lot of folks view may as the election and November for when you go vote for Mitch McConnell

Yeah I think we're all agreed on this.  I know some of you may not believe me but I do consider myself independent (though I readily admit that I lean left on a number of issues) and have voted for republicans in the past, it truly depends on the candidate though.  I say let all vote in both primaries.

[treee]

Ohio has open primaries and I would be livid if they tried to close them. I agree that closed primaries only increases partisan polarization which is the last thing we need as a country right now.

[BmorePat87]

Political parties should reserve the right to limit voting in primaries to only members of their party. If you want to vote, you have plenty of time to register for that party. I do this every primary cycle.

Would it benefit them to have open primaries so that they are getting a candidate who will attract the most independents? Sure, and if they are smart, they'll do that.

With regards to the original post, I agree that party registration will cause more divisiveness, but... that's already occurring when our elections are just D v R. Until multiple parties are viable in most elections, you won't see a difference. You'd need to ban political parties, forcing politicians into caucuses, but that would be unconstitutional.

[fredtoast]

Political parties are private clubs. The government should have ZERO control over how they pick their candidates.

I don't even understand why the government pays for the primary elections.

[Rotobeast]

(01-02-2017, 03:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Political parties should reserve the right to limit voting in primaries to only members of their party. If you want to vote, you have plenty of time to register for that party. I do this every primary cycle.

Would it benefit them to have open primaries so that they are getting a candidate who will attract the most independents? Sure, and if they are smart, they'll do that.

With regards to the original post, I agree that party registration will cause more divisiveness, but... that's already occurring when our elections are just D v R. Until multiple parties are viable in most elections, you won't see a difference. You'd need to ban political parties, forcing politicians into caucuses, but that would be unconstitutional.

And if you are registered as an Independent, you SHOULD be able to vote in every primary.
Your ass is not hemmed into any slot, but nooooo... you get punished for not towing somebody's line.


I'd love to see the last bit changed, constitutionally, of course.

[*michaelsean*]

Along the line of what Fred said, if the government is running the election, then the parties should have no say in who votes. If they want a closed primary, then they should hold their own voting process on their own properties.