US primaries - could somebody explain?

[HoreTore]

Just when I thought I had it all figured out...

I thought these primaries were like the party nominations we have here, only with the direct approach instead of the representative approach here. But then I read an article in the paper today:

...The whole family is republicans, but both Karen Smith and Heather West plan to participate in the democrat nomination.
- I'll vote for the candidate who will be the easiest for McCain to beat in November, And that's Barack Obama, says Karen.

So what the hell? Republicans can vote for the democrat candidate? Or is this journalist a useless idiot?

[Fragony]

What are you so surprised of?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Some primaries are open and allow that, others are closed.

[HoreTore]

That sounds.......seriously up.

[TinCow]

It varies by state. Generally, the idea is that it allows independants to have a say in the party they plan on voting for in the upcoming election. This is considered important to some people, because a large percentage of the US electorate is not registered in either party. AFAIK, most states with open primaries allow you to vote in whichever primary you want, but you can only vote in one.

While it certainly opens up the system to exploitation by voters from the opposing party, from what I've seen this is probably not a serious risk. I live in Virginia, which has an open primary. After our voting, the reports I saw indicated that about 7 to 8% of the votes cast in the Democratic primary were by Republicans. Apparently this was a very high number. At least a couple of those percentage points are Republicans who truly do want to vote for a Democrat this year (I know one personally), so the percentage of votes by Republicans intentionally trying to 'rig' the election would not likely be higher than 5%.

That's not a massive number, especially when you consider that those 'rigging' the vote aren't even coordinated very well in their efforts. As noted above, your quote is by a person who says that McCain is more likely to beat Obama than Clinton. This is directly contrary to most of the polls I have seen, which have Obama faring far better against McCain than Clinton would. My Republican friend who wants to vote Democrat specifically wants to vote for Obama. He'd vote Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton.

It's a crazy year.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore:

Like pretty much everything electoral in the USA, it varies by state.

Some states have closed primaries or caucuses and only those who are party members registered as such prior to a certain date may participate. This kind of primary or causus would function along the lines with which you are familiar. E.G. Wisconsin

Other states have open primaries where a registered voter can request a ballot for either major political party and vote for the nominee of their choice. This approach to primaries and caucuses is usually taken on the grounds that "restricting" nomination voting to registered members of a party somehow denies the "will of the people" in selecting a nominee. E.G. Virginia


In these latter states, especially after one's own party's nominee has been decided, it is strategically valuable to vote in the other party's primary in order to promote the candidate LEAST likely to do well in opposition to the nominee of your true party.

I cast just such a vote in Virginia for Hilary Clinton.* McCain was already the almost prohibitively likely GOP nominee (at the time I voted, Huckabee needed to get 83% of the remaining delegates to defeat McCain. Absen pictures of McCain in bed with an underage boy, this would not happen) and therefore I cast my vote in the other primary to support a candidate who I know will turn out votes against her in November. Obama is every bit the political "lefty" she is, but doesn't have her high negatives. If my vote for Hil got her one delegate more, it gives her just that much more of a chance to turn the Dem nominating convention into a donnybrook.

I am not a big fan of McCain either -- though I do not question his personal integrity in any way -- since he's too "big government" for my preferences. Nevertheless, he is less likely to lead my country down a path I mislike, so I'll take him over either leading Democrat. Therefore, voting for the Democrat more likely to lose to him in November was the most logical choice for me.


Yes, labelling a primary system that allows such shenanigans as "malfed up" may be a fair description.



* Additionally, as a Capo-II recruiting tool, I promised Louis I would vote for his preferred nominee so that he could legitimately claimed to have caused a vote on her behalf. A few days after I offered this promise, Romney dropped out and made it my best vote as well thus making it very easy to honor that promise to our French friend.

[HoreTore]

This approach to primaries and caucuses is usually taken on the grounds that "restricting" nomination voting to registered members of a party somehow denies the "will of the people" in selecting a nominee. E.G. Virginia

Hmm? The president is elected by the will of the people... However, shouldn't a party's nominee be elected by the will of the party, not the people?

But thanks for the clarifications, Seamus and Tincow. Although I'm sure I'll soon read another strange quirk of the american election throwing me into complete confusion again...

Bah. "Land of the Free". Hah. Should've been "Land of the Tricky".

[drone]

The semi-closed primary system would be ideal. Registered party members have to vote in their own party primary, but independents can vote in either. Only one or two states do it though.

[Xiahou]

Some primaries are open and allow that, others are closed.

Open primaries are stupid, imo. Members of a party should be the ones who determine a candidate that best represents that party. Open primaries helped the GOP end up with McCain, and now it's leading to meddling in the Democrat primaries.