Posted on 07/12/2011 8:52:32 AM PDT by jenk
If Dims vote in the Republican primary, they should be prohibited from voting for a democrat in the general election that year. In other words, you should have to declare your party affiliation in the primary and that party will be the party you vote for in the general. Only the party regulars should be allowed to vote for their candidate.
When an individual registers as a member of a political party is there a way to find out how long they’ve been a member? If so, perhaps a modified closed primary would work best. Modified in that each consecutive year a person was registered with the party would count as a vote. That way, uneducated teens and party-switching saboteurs would have very little impact and the older people with loyalty to the party would be rewarded for their consistency.
It could perhaps be broken down as percentages: Registered member for more than 10 uninterrupted years = 100% value for primary vote, between 5 years and 10 years = 80% value, 3 to 5 years = 50% value, more than 1 year but less than 3 years = 30% value, less than 1 year = 10% value.
So one dedicated Republican could offset the votes of 10 leftists that try to affect the process.
Yes? No? Comments?
How can you dictate to someone who they will vote for in a general election based on their registration.
That’s contrary to the American principles of secret ballot.
Closed Primary
This is why changing the nominating process from the convention run by the party to a primary system open to the electorate was a horrible idea. The party can not control who their nominee is in an open primary.
Basically, if the party you want to vote for in the general election is not holding a primary, then you won't be voting in a primary election. There is no constitutional right to vote in a primary election.
Gold ticket in a Wonka bar would be fine just so long as it isn’t an open primary.
I forget who won our last presidential primary in Michigan.
Wasn’t it either Romney or McCain?
Oddly enough, there was technically no democrat presidential primary which I think might have been part of the game all along.
It was Romney.
Personally I wish we had a single primary day nationwide. After the first 25 states have made their decision, candidates have dropped out who may have done well in later states.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they established the convention system for choosing the party's candidates. The problem of direct elections by the populace in the primaries as opposed to the elections by the delegates parallels the problems we would have if we switched to a popular vote, forsaking the electoral college.
At any rate, though, CLOSE OUR PRIMARY ELECTIONS!
Not a big surprise.
Thanks all for your input.
Considering the fact that you can only vote one way or the other on a ballot, it sounds like no change.
yes, you are correct
Good luck!
I don't know what I support except no democraps voting in my primary or caucus. That's how we got stuck with Snyder.
Romney won with about 39 or 40%. It wasn’t as high as expected.
At the polling place? I don't like that a bit.
It’s a big disappointment. With the Rats having no competition, they’ll be flocking in droves to make mischief.
Zero difference as far as I can tell. After all, you can only vote one way on a ballot anyway.
All this does is gives them a list of people they can inundate with robocalls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.