Talk:Open primaries in the United States

message: The definition provided is inexplicit and could be easily confused with blanket primary elections! check it out for yourself
The definition in my text book "American Government Ed. 7" (Wilson) states that an open primary is an election "that permits voters to choose on election day the primary in which they wish to vote. The may vote for candidates in only one party."
--Shabbycat (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The current graphic (as of April 23, 2008) comparing McCain's support among Republicans and Democrats implies that his election was due to Democratic meddling.  It includes the state of Florida, which is a Closed Primary state (you much be a member of a particular party from 30 days prior to the election in order to vote in that primary) and so wrongly implies that is the reason he is the Republican nominee.  I don't know about the laws in South Carolina or Missouri, but New Hampshire is only a partial open primary, where people registered to a party most vote in that party primary but people with no party affiliation can choose either.  I'm not sure how to best address this in the context of the image, but it is an issue in my view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.193.69 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a qualm with the graphic on the page 

message: I'm not fully qualified to do this, but here is my understanding.  In Lousisana (and maybe Alaska, I'm less familar with this) one files to run for an office.  While his or her party affilation is known, one is not the nominee of any party and all voters may vote in the primary for all offices, and can if they choose to vote for the members of one party for some offices and other for others.  What this "open primary" is makes it considerably different than that it most other states, where a primary is "open" in the sense that one's voter registration doesn't reflect membership in a particular party, but on the day of the primary election one must declare which primary he or she chooses to participate in, and is then restricted to choices among those running for the nomination of that party for all offices on the ballot that day.  
The Louisiana system is probably more comparable to the general election system used in many countries in which it is presumed that no one candidate or party will receive a majority in a first round of voting and that there will be necessarily a second round, often referred to as a "runoff" in the United States.  In fact, the Louisiana system is essentialy this, in that if a candidate receives a clear majority (50% + one) in the "primary", he or she is deemed to have been elected with no further campaigning required, making the voting somewhat less than in the nature of a true primary and more that of a general election.  There could even be some note in the article that it is widely felt that the Louisiana system was enacted by a Democratic legislature in an attempt to prevent the state from largely changing hands to Republican control; if this were the intent, it has been a success to a considerable degree.  
The article should also note that when a similar sort of scheme was enacted in California, allowing people to vote in primaries for candidates of both parties, it was voided by the U.S. Supreme Court (California Democratic Party v. Jones) as allowing preventing the parties from having their nominees being chosen by their own legitimate members and allowing their nomination processes to be opened to potential "sabotage" by those whose sole interest was in a party being forced to support only weak, unelectable nominees who could then be defeated easily by the other party's slate in the general election.  (Of course, this charge is often made in all "open primary" states where one can change party affiliation at every primary and can occur when one party's primary is generally uneventful and there are consensus nominees widely expected to win; many of its members may then vote in the other party's primary, either in an attempt to sabotage it or in a sincere attempt to help ensure that each party has the best-possible nominees, with "best" perhaps being a different standard than that which would be applied by "real" members of the party whose primary is being "invaded".)
Rlquall 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana vs. other "open primary" states 

message: The item about not being required to state a party preference publically is not true about Tennessee.  One must declare the primary in which one desires to vote at each primary election and this declaration becomes part of the permanent public record; however one does not register as a member of a party and can change more or less freely at each primary election and many do this, but this change is public.  This system is often used to confuse voters with regards to the records of a primary opponent.  For example, county offices in Nashville are almost almost always decided in the Democratic primary; often there is not even a Republican primary or only a token one with only one or two candidates even if several offices are being contested, so that it is meaningless and the Democratic primary is the only "real" election for these offices.  For Republicans and Independents not to be disenfranchised in the voting process, they often "join" the Democratic Party for the purpose of voting in these elections; Republicans then generally "rejoin" their party when they have statewide offices to make nominations for (governor and senator).  This fact was used against current Republican senatorial nominee Bob Corker in the primary; they noted that he wasn't a "real Republican" because he had voted in the Democratic primary while briefly a resident of Nashville years ago, his response being that he had to do so to be able to cast a meaningful vote for the offices being contested.  Rlquall 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Missouri is exactly the same as TN (at least as of 2004; both parties only had token opposition in the primaries in the races I cared about this year), in which to get the ballots were color coded by the party you declared you wanted to vote in (with another color for not voting in any party primary and merely in the local general election and/or state wide balot issues). This seems to be a matter of public record here as well because I got a lot of Republican state campaign material but no Democratic state campaign material for the general elections in 2004 and 06. (In fact the only material I got from a Democrat was from our State Representive who has gotten a lot of cross party support in the past two elections.) Jon 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Illinois, at least suburban Cook County.  I'm an election judge, and until recently (say 2000 or so) we were to request that the person "declare" their party preference, repeat it "in a clear voice," and give the applicable ballot; now we are to ask them to mark on their application for ballot which party's ballot they would prefer to vote on.  We aren't supposed to "announce" it any more, but the ballot choice is still chosen prior to entering the booth and is a matter of public record.  Even before the above change, people could change parties at each election since I've been voting (1986).  There used to be a rule in the election handbook that election judges must vote in their own party's primary, and now that's gone too.Fitfatfighter (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open primary in Tennessee 

message: I realize there is a "to-do list", and some authors have greater ambitions for the page, but I'd hardly call it a "stub" anymore? Is it still appropriate to have a "stub" tag on this page?  --TomChatt 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: Does anyone know of a website which lists each state and says whether they have an open or closed system? (or modified or whatever)
24.153.223.234 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is what I came to this article to find, and it is not here.  Alas.  24.59.148.187 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map with states showing which system they use? 

message: I've tagged this article US-centric, as it is entirely about primary elections in the United States.  I don't know jack about election process (indeed, I came to this article to learn), but I expect the concept of an "open primary" exists outside the US, too.  If I'm wrong, and it is an entirely US notion, then that should be made explicit in the article.  Hopefully someone who knows more will see the tag and improve the article.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so that would mean this article is US-centric, and coverage of open primaries in other countries would be worth adding then, right?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Point------>
<-----You
--97.81.85.164 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of any other countries using open primaries.  Primaries (closed or open) are in fact very rare outside the US. Most political parties around the world select their nominees for the general election by caucus, convention, behind close doors, or other methods.  One of the reasons why open primaries originated in the US is because the two largest parties are decentralized associatons of state parties.  Second, the presidential system of the US separates the executive branch from the legislature leading to many intraparty rivals competing for one post, the primary helps prevent the party from splitting dur to these dominant personalities.  Third, the US uses first past the post single member districts instead of using proportional representation party lists.  Fourth, primaries in the US are state (i.e. taxpayer) funded despite being private party affairs (this is where third parties cry foul); most countries won't or can't fund anything more than a general election and its possible run-off election.  Fifth, most parties believe it is absurd or risky to let non-members (including opponents) choose their candidates for them.--Countakeshi (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A rudimentary search on Google does, in fact, turn up several non-US topics on open primaries, and this is likely to grow as democratic processes mature around the world. Rather than attempting to cram everything into one article by globalizing, I preemptively split off the article so that it is US-specific. I suspect most readers would be interested mainly in the way that their own country deals with the topic, and not so much others. At any rate, there should be enough content for the US open primary to have its own article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric 

message: In the list of primaries Illinois as listed as open. But it also says Illinois has a closed primary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8101:CC00:F19C:B406:AB4E:3A93 (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois 

message: The California section of the article mentions that California has had a "modified closed primary" since 2001, but then speaks of 2011, appearing to define "modified closed primary".   Is "2001" a typographical error that should instead list 2011?  If not, perhaps an explanation of or segue for the two dates would be helpful?
Jasonnet (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 or 2001 ? 

message: The article mentions that "partisan blanket primary" had been ruled as unconstitutional in 2000, but it doesn't define "partisan blanket primary".  It would be great if that were defined here or on the "blanket primary" article.
Jasonnet (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  partisan blanket primary