DNC chair wants to exclude independents from Dem primaries | Washington Examiner
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz would do away with open primaries and allow the party’s nominee to be chosen by Democrats alone if she were in control of the process.
“I believe that the party’s nominee should be chosen — this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opinion — that the party’s nominee should be chosen by members of the party,” the DNC chief said in an interview with “MSNBC Live” Monday.
From: DNC chair wants to exclude independents from Dem primaries | Washington Examiner
Does she mean, like, on an ideological level?
Or does she just mean, like, “you have to register Democrat first”?
(I suspect that she means the former but is using the latter as a proxy.)Report
I’ve got no problems with “registered Democrats only” although the devil would be in the details*. In the end, though, it’s still a state level decision anyways so it doesn’t matter.
*Same day registration? Three months prior? How quickly can you re-register? Just off the cuff, I’d be okay with same-day registration if you haven’t be registered with a party. Switching parties, eh…three months ahead of time maybe? Encourages new faces to join (easy to join!) but requires you to decide which party you’re a part of before the primary really gets going. Discourages drive-by shenanigans if the other party’s primary is boring.Report
Anyone who refers to themselves via their own name just HAS to be ideologically driven. I mean, it’s certainly true that people can rationally disagree about these things, but I think – and this is just Stillwater’s opinion here – that anyone who explicitly refers to themselves in the process of expressing their own opinion is automatically excluded from the circle of “rational” disagreement.Report
Hrmph, dumb idea. Last thing the party needs is to exclude newcomers and I say that keenly aware that in this cycle the newbies were hard core for Bernie.Report
I have no problem with newcomers who want to be part of governing the party. I do have a problem with people who want to show up the day off and have much as a voice as people who have put decades into building the party.
You’ve got two options – you can either be a registered independent and be glorified by the media or you can be a registered member of one of the two major parties and actually have a voice in how the nation will go.Report
I sympathize with the sentiment but I just don’t think battening the hatches down is a good idea for the party or the ideology. Maybe if registration was made very easy…Report
What does “registration” entail in the states? Is this a thing you register with the government itself, rather than with one of the parties? Is this the same registration you need in place in order to vote in the elections themselves?Report
It’s part of registering to vote with the state. Here in California, you have until 15 days before the election to register or to change parties.Report
Interesting – so party affiliation is tied more or less directly to the franchise itself.
This is fairly different from Canada, where party affiliation is a matter of membership in an organization that is free to set its own rules, such that they vary somewhat from one party to another (and voting on party leadership is open to that party’s members, and also subject to each party’s rules in addition to the membership requirements).
There’s nothing in law that says a party member has to be eligible to vote (at least some of the parties don’t require that one be a citizen to join the party, for example).Report
There’s nothing in US law, either, except insofar as they want the government to run the primary election and pay for it. A political party can bypass all of this, if they want, and just nominate at convention.Report
The state funds the parties’ primaries? Wow, that’s got to be a considerable subsidy!Report
The US is, as I understand things, more or less unique in this regard.Report
The more I learn about elections in the US, the more it seems to me that is generally applicable.Report
They’re Exceptional!Report
I have no problem with Republicans voting in Democratic primaries, as long as they have IDs and go to the part of town with five-hour lines.Report
For whatever it’s worth, I consider it largely an internal matter. I don’t think there is any moral obligation to have open primaries, though states are free to require it in return for footing the bill. There are arguments that it’s good for the party itself, in which case it’s a good idea.
I like what some states do which is have open primaries but as soon as you vote in one you are automatically registered in that party. That provides more of a disincentive than one might think for the really bad (Lester Maddox) kind of cross-primary voting.Report
Hey, I kinda like this!
My only thought would be to lump all contestants together, and the primary is only a way to winnow down to two candidates if there isn’t an immeadiate winner.
But yeah, for the most part it is an internal thing, it this is what the DNC wants, than it is what it should get. If they just want to put together a back room coalition to annoint, than that would be OK also. It might change how people think about them as possible presidents, but so it goes.Report
have open primaries but as soon as you vote in one you are automatically registered in that party
Holy crap. This is brilliant.
I think I wholeheartedly agree with this.Report
That’s pretty much what same-day registration IS. If you pair it with “switching registration needs to be done 90 days prior” you’re very welcoming to people who haven’t been in any party, but require jumpers to put a little effort in.Report
Yeah, it’s basically a closed primary with (automatic) same-day party registration.Report
I like it too.Report
See, I read this as far more of a “we don’t want there to be another Bernie” situation. Yes, the Super Delegates are supposed to be a firewall against some radical upstart using the the primaries to beat the tar out of a candidate with relative impunity, but they aren’t working like they’re supposed to. Bernie was supposed to have dropped out months ago and, well, he just won’t.
So the easy fix? Stop letting those stinking independents vote and let the party pick who it ~wants~ to have in charge, not who people are willing to vote for. And they know that when the time comes, people will vote Democrat before they vote Republican regardless of who’s on the ticket. The Democrats could get a Pomeranian elected if they just ran enough on “But it’s not one of THEM!” and that’s what they’re happy with. I firmly believe that ONLY a “President Trump” will get either party to stop trying to anoint a candidate and get into the practice listening to people.Report