Why have Open Primaries?

[A'elian' nation]

Almost half of the states have open primaries. Why do states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have open republican primaries? It's like having a death wish to turn purple, blue, and asphyxiated by democrat and independent voters.

One of the first things the Tea Party needs to do is turn more states into closed primaries. The theory is that open primaries will bring more voters to our tent. I don't buy it. Or maybe the republican brand name is so bad that people don't want to register as republicans and be stigmatized. But then you would think the GOP in California would have open primaries, but theirs are closed.

I believe RINO politicians like the open primaries to keep them in office. That seems sensible but then why do so many southern states have open primaries where RINOS are almost extinct? It's befuddling. I don't see what is to be gained by having open primaries to voters that can sabotage our tea candidates?

Am hoping there are some Freepers out there that can enlighten me. Meanwhile here is a chart of the states with open and closed primaries.

http://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-states-with-open-and-closed-primaries/

[SoothingDave]

My understanding is, the parties agreed to it because they wanted to foist the cost of running elections off onto the taxpayer, and Primaries that are closed to the taxpayers who aren’t in the parties would be anathema.

Not the case here in PA. Primaries are closed, but the state monitors and runs the elections (as I understand it).

Also, you don't have to wait a year to vote or anything like that. You do have to register in advance of the election (they close registration 30 days before).

[SoothingDave]

Do you recall a state changing its primaries to open or closed periodically? How often does a primary revert to one or the other?

Open primaries are like gay marriage. Some states move to open primaries. None ever go back. It's "progress."

[Cyber Liberty]

That’s a good way to run things. Here’s proof positive it’s a good way: Arlen Specter hated it so much he pointed at it as the reason he jumped back to the Rats.

Better still, he lost. Six months as a lame duck for “Mr. Scottish Law,” “Mr. ‘Super-Duper Precedent’” was delicious to me. I danced on his political grave.

[Cyber Liberty]

Open primaries are like gay marriage. Some states move to open primaries. None ever go back. It's "progress."

"Like."

[A'elian' nation]

“A closed primary won’t change that. “

So a closed primary won’t change anything, yet half the country is on an open system and half are closed. If there is no net result difference with either one then why aren’t they all closed or all open?

Obviously half the states feel there is an advantage to their system. And why don’t they change with changing times as you mentioned about how it was way back when?

[SoothingDave]

In California, a party can’t even run a candidate in the general election.

Everyone is in one big primary and the top two run in the general.

More “progress.”

Early voting and mail in voting are other stupid ideas that progressives like.

[x]

My hunch is that at least some time open primaries in those states allowed conservative Democrats to overcome their hostility to the GOP vote for conservative Republicans in Republican primaries. I don't have evidence and don't know how things are in those states nowadays.

The complaint one usually hears is that open presidential primaries in states Republicans will never carry give an advantage to more moderate or liberal Republicans. There's something to be said for that theory. It's also a variant of the Carter-Clinton-era complaint of liberal Democrats that the Super Tuesday primaries in Southern that Democrats usually lost hurt the more liberal contenders who were the choice of party activists.

Open primaries were a good idea when the parties weren't so ideologically divided. If there was a chance that Democrats might actually nominate the more conservative candidate, it was a good idea to be free to help that candidate win his primary. That rationale doesn't exist nowadays, but if one party's primary were confined to paid-up dues-paying members of a political party, the candidates chosen wouldn't be as representative of the constituency as a whole and would be likely to lose the general election.

[A'elian' nation]

“Open primaries were a good idea when the parties weren’t so ideologically divided.”

That is well stated and has been my understanding as well. I really don’t see the advantage of open primaries the more vituperative and divided our politics have become.

Mississisppi is facing thie dilemma right now. While the nation is focused on the McDaniel tea party Senate challenge to Thad Cochran, the Palazzi House race has become interesting since one-time democrat and previous office holder, now turned republican, Gene Taylor, has entered the republican primary against Palazzi.

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/37203/