why are most independent voters not allowed to vote in primary elections?

[judymcfarlane]

Do weigh in, please. Because I've had it up to my ears with both sides of the aisle and am feeling that I've been had, royally, by a lot of very rotten politicians.

[corktownyuppie]

You haven't "been had", at least as far as this goes. There are pro's and con's to allowing independents to vote in the primaries.

Here's a description of the different types:

Most countries in which primary elections are organized by parties, not the administration, generally distinguish only two types of primaries:

• Closed primary [[synonyms: internal primaries, party primaries). In the case of closed primaries, internal primaries, or party primaries, only party members can vote.
• Open primary. All voters can take part in an open primary, but the party may require them to express their support to the party's values and pay a small contribution to the costs of the primary.

In the United States, other types can be differentiated:

• Closed primary. People may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party. Independents cannot participate. Note that because some political parties name themselves independent, the term "non-partisan" often replaces "independent" when referring to those who are not affiliated with a political party.
• Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day.
• Open primary. A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his own party affiliation. When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party's primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as raiding may occur. Raiding consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition's candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the nomination of Fred Tuttle as the Republican candidate in the general election.

Click here for a wikipedia article listing the states with open primaries.

Obviously, the risks for an independent trying to spoil it for the party are much lower than when the opposing party tries to do it...but still the risks are there.

[Mikeg]

What does this have to do with Detroit? Partisan politics and "rotten politicians" are not phenomena limited to Detroit and environs.

[Don K]

Actually, Michigan, with no party registration, has one of the more open primary systems in the country. I took advantage of this last year to vote in the Republican primary for Snyder, because I believed he would do less damage to the state than would Hoekstra, Cox, or Bouchard [[I'm no dummy - I could see it was a Republican year, so the action was in the Republican primary). So far, I'd say that decision was sound.

[Goose]

i don't know why anyone who wasn't either a "registered" democrat or republican should or thinks they should have the right to vote in the primary... this is a party specific election on who this party thinks should be the person to represent them..... allowing independants to vote in these elections, in my opinion, diminishes the desires of the "party"......

[EastsideAl]

The problem stems from mixing a party function [[nominating candidates) with a public function [[elections). Way back when primaries were first proposed they were seen as a progressive idea, which would put an end to the nomination of candidates in "smoke filled rooms" or by riggable conventions full of self-interested political pros, and open the process up to the voters.

It has done that to some extent, but it also forced a system of registration by party in most states, served to officially institutionalize the 2 party system and insulate it from potential challenges, and gave state sanction to the disenfranchisement of non-affiliated voters until the general election.

[JenniferL]

i don't know why anyone who wasn't either a "registered" democrat or republican should or thinks they should have the right to vote in the primary... this is a party specific election on who this party thinks should be the person to represent them..... allowing independants to vote in these elections, in my opinion, diminishes the desires of the "party"......

We independents have to live with the consequences of these primary elections, so we should be able to vote in them. Sometimes I like a particular party's candidate and I want to give my support to that person. Other times, I see that the lunatics are running the asylum and I want to throw my weight behind the more moderate candidate. And why should only the Party faithful get to vote twice, once in the primary and once in the general?

[gnome]

Anyone can vote in any primary they desire. You just can't split your ticket.

For example, Bob is a democrat, carries a picture of fdr in his wallet, but Bob can go to his local precinct and vote in the Republican primary. What he can't do is also vote in the Democratic primary.

Fair? Not really. But not unfair either. It just is what it is.

The OP and the title of this thread is completely misinformed. Ms Judy should stay out west where being misinformed is a point of pride, as it seems to be with her.

[Hermod]

Anyone can vote in any primary they desire. You just can't split your ticket.

For example, Bob is a democrat, carries a picture of fdr in his wallet, but Bob can go to his local precinct and vote in the Republican primary. What he can't do is also vote in the Democratic primary.

Fair? Not really. But not unfair either. It just is what it is.

The OP and the title of this thread is completely misinformed. Ms Judy should stay out west where being misinformed is a point of pride, as it seems to be with her.

Judy probably has a closed primary system where she is living now and doesn't realize that Michigan is an open primary system. Open primaries, like eugenics and free trade, are progressive ideas which have had unintended consequences.

[Novine]

"We independents have to live with the consequences of these primary elections, so we should be able to vote in them."

They're not intended for you if you're an actual independent. The primaries exist so the parties can select candidates. One could say that the parties hold too much control over the political system. I wouldn't disagree with that statement. But if you want to select candidates in the primaries, you either need to pick a party or start your own or stick to candidates who affiliate with a party.

[old guy]

Gnome, I almost get the feeling that you're not very fond of the west coast.

[firstandten]

Gnome, I almost get the feeling that you're not very fond of the west coast.

Naw ! He just thinks the west coasters bought into that manifest destiny line a little too hard

[gnome]

I was up in the middle of the night with the flu, going on day 4, I'm a little grumpy.

BTW, I like the West Coast just fine, but am calling on Thumper to provide guidance.