Primaries should not be funded by taxpayers unless they are open to all voters. The current system is the definition of taxation without representation.
As a long-time registered Independent, I would like to be able to vote in every election regardless of my political orientation. Here is South Dakota, registered Independents can not vote in primary elections. How shameful that there are political parties that try so hard to keep you (me!) from voting. VOTING IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE. Think about it!
Thanks for clarifying for me. I moved back home to South Dakota from Oregon about a decade ago. Oregon has made it so easy to vote as it is all mail-in ballots. Now I know more about the primary process!
Why should you pick the candidate for a party you're not a part of? You get to choose whether that party made a good decision in November.
That being said tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for a party's primary. Lets get rid of primaries and go to ranked choice voting. Repeal SB 55 from 2023.
As a registered Independent, why shouldn't I have the right to vote my choice? Why should I have to belong to any Party? In the General Election, I am not excluded so what viable reasoning is there to disallow me voting in a primary election? I vote for the office, not the Party. Ranked choice has many positives and might even increase voter turnout. Just saying ...
I agree with you with ranked choice voting has many positives. I'd love it if it was legalized and utilized.
however, I repeat. Why should you get to pick a Party's candidate if you're not part of that Party?
The primary is used to select a PARTY's candidate, the purpose is to literally vote for the party. The GENERAL election is where you vote for the office, not the party.
A Party should still be able to select its standard bearer if it wants, which is what the primary is currently for. Maybe get rid of the primary voting system as we currently have it and make the Parties pay for their selection process?
As an Independent, I should have the right to vote for candidates in primary elections. I would be voting for an individual running for an office, that if elected, should be representing all of us and not just the party.
The general election is for selecting the person who will represent all of us. The primary is for deciding who will represent a particular political party's ideals in the general.
Saying you "should have the right" is circular logic when I'm asking ask why you should. If all you have its "because" that's cool, I just thought you might having better reasoning.
State law allows registered Independents to vote in primary elections if the Party allows it and files for it. Just questioning why a political party would not want votes from an Independent. Must be a reason why they don't want more votes for their candidates.
If your party wants a closed primary then your party needs to conduct and PAY FOR the primary however you see fit to conduct it. Publicly funded and managed primaries should only be allowed for primaries that are open to all voters, just like general elections.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a state holding primaries. As I already stated freedom of association is protected under the constitution which means parties can limit participation to those in the party.
A closed members-only political party's leadership selection process should never be subsidized by tax dollars collected from the general public. For the same reasons a private social club would never be subsidized with tax dollars from the general public for the purpose of conducting the private members-only business of choosing its leaders.
Its not about it being a constitutional issue. Its that us tax payers are paying for a private organization to select its candidate. They don't need a government handout.
Its only a constitutional issue if the Constitution addresses the matter. The SD Constitution does not address primary elections. Article VII covers elections and only address (1) free/no interference in elections, (2) voter qualifications (minimum age, registration, no felonies, residency) and (3) legislature writes the rest of the rules.
They are forcing their candidates on independents though. Parties should be including independents to get stronger candidates anyway. Doeden almost winning the GOP's governor race should be a warning about what kind of candidates party only elections make viable.
I'm very aware of what primaries are for. They're used to strong arm voters into registering as a Democrat or Republican and preserve party powers over general elections.
What would be great is, we just registered to vote and didn’t have to register to any political party. Then maybe the politicians would quit moving district lines to give an advantage to one party or another
It's not a hard problem to solve, if independents and democrats want to vote in a republican primary they can register as republican. Otherwise they can run their own candidates and primaries against republicans.
Independents can already register as either a democrat or a republican if they want, it costs nothing. We need to quit talking about open primaries and start talking about ranked choice voting. Repeal SB 55 from 2023 and the people will have more say.
No where does it say political parties should rule our country. Under God the people rule. That's how it should be. Republicans don't want it because they have to relinquish a little of the power they have accumulated over the years. I say power to the people. Independents should be able to vote in either the Republican OR the Democrat primary. The people of South Dakota would then reclaim some of the power they were intended to have back when the state was allowed into the union.
Primaries should not be funded by taxpayers unless they are open to all voters. The current system is the definition of taxation without representation.
They are open to all voters. It costs no money for you, or any other voter, to fill out the Voter Registration Form. https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/voting/assets/FINAL-VoterRegistrationForm_Part1.pdf
Open primaries are just ranked choice voting over 6 month period. Instead we should be repealing SB 55 from 2023 that outlawed ranked choice voting.
As a long-time registered Independent, I would like to be able to vote in every election regardless of my political orientation. Here is South Dakota, registered Independents can not vote in primary elections. How shameful that there are political parties that try so hard to keep you (me!) from voting. VOTING IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE. Think about it!
The Democratic Party primaries are open to us independents. It’s just rare that they have primaries.
Thanks for clarifying for me. I moved back home to South Dakota from Oregon about a decade ago. Oregon has made it so easy to vote as it is all mail-in ballots. Now I know more about the primary process!
I wish we would do that here!!!
Why should you pick the candidate for a party you're not a part of? You get to choose whether that party made a good decision in November.
That being said tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for a party's primary. Lets get rid of primaries and go to ranked choice voting. Repeal SB 55 from 2023.
As a registered Independent, why shouldn't I have the right to vote my choice? Why should I have to belong to any Party? In the General Election, I am not excluded so what viable reasoning is there to disallow me voting in a primary election? I vote for the office, not the Party. Ranked choice has many positives and might even increase voter turnout. Just saying ...
I agree with you with ranked choice voting has many positives. I'd love it if it was legalized and utilized.
however, I repeat. Why should you get to pick a Party's candidate if you're not part of that Party?
The primary is used to select a PARTY's candidate, the purpose is to literally vote for the party. The GENERAL election is where you vote for the office, not the party.
A Party should still be able to select its standard bearer if it wants, which is what the primary is currently for. Maybe get rid of the primary voting system as we currently have it and make the Parties pay for their selection process?
As an Independent, I should have the right to vote for candidates in primary elections. I would be voting for an individual running for an office, that if elected, should be representing all of us and not just the party.
The general election is for selecting the person who will represent all of us. The primary is for deciding who will represent a particular political party's ideals in the general.
Saying you "should have the right" is circular logic when I'm asking ask why you should. If all you have its "because" that's cool, I just thought you might having better reasoning.
State law allows registered Independents to vote in primary elections if the Party allows it and files for it. Just questioning why a political party would not want votes from an Independent. Must be a reason why they don't want more votes for their candidates.
Or just get rid of political parties all together and truly let the people rule.
The concept of freedom of association has long been recognized under the First Amendment. Nobody is forcing you to join a political party.
If your party wants a closed primary then your party needs to conduct and PAY FOR the primary however you see fit to conduct it. Publicly funded and managed primaries should only be allowed for primaries that are open to all voters, just like general elections.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a state holding primaries. As I already stated freedom of association is protected under the constitution which means parties can limit participation to those in the party.
A closed members-only political party's leadership selection process should never be subsidized by tax dollars collected from the general public. For the same reasons a private social club would never be subsidized with tax dollars from the general public for the purpose of conducting the private members-only business of choosing its leaders.
Run for governor yourself and change how SD handles elections otherwise facts don’t care about your feelings.
I am very happy with how we run our primaries in SD unlike the Jungle Primaries of California and Alaska that harbor corruption.
How was Alaska's ranked choice corrupt? Bc a moderate democrat ended up coming out on top?
That's not what the governor does. The legislature writes the laws....
How does Alaska's elections harbor corruption? Because Republicans in Alaska didn't understand how picking 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice worked?
Its not about it being a constitutional issue. Its that us tax payers are paying for a private organization to select its candidate. They don't need a government handout.
Of course it is SD is allowed to run elections as we wish. If you don’t agree with them elect people to change them.
Its only a constitutional issue if the Constitution addresses the matter. The SD Constitution does not address primary elections. Article VII covers elections and only address (1) free/no interference in elections, (2) voter qualifications (minimum age, registration, no felonies, residency) and (3) legislature writes the rest of the rules.
They are forcing their candidates on independents though. Parties should be including independents to get stronger candidates anyway. Doeden almost winning the GOP's governor race should be a warning about what kind of candidates party only elections make viable.
Nonsense. A political party needs to be able to pick the candidates they wish. It returns to freedom of association.
This reads as party over country/state. A fitting description of how our elected officials have voted in DC and Pierre. Wonder why that is.
Only if you are ignorant of what the purpose of a primary is. The general election decides who goes to DC and Pierre.
I'm very aware of what primaries are for. They're used to strong arm voters into registering as a Democrat or Republican and preserve party powers over general elections.
Why should parties include independents (Democrats do by the way)? You can register as a republican if you want to vote in their primary.
What would be great is, we just registered to vote and didn’t have to register to any political party. Then maybe the politicians would quit moving district lines to give an advantage to one party or another
It's not a hard problem to solve, if independents and democrats want to vote in a republican primary they can register as republican. Otherwise they can run their own candidates and primaries against republicans.
Democrats already let independents vote in their primaries
Independents can already register as either a democrat or a republican if they want, it costs nothing. We need to quit talking about open primaries and start talking about ranked choice voting. Repeal SB 55 from 2023 and the people will have more say.
Independent is not a party.
No where does it say political parties should rule our country. Under God the people rule. That's how it should be. Republicans don't want it because they have to relinquish a little of the power they have accumulated over the years. I say power to the people. Independents should be able to vote in either the Republican OR the Democrat primary. The people of South Dakota would then reclaim some of the power they were intended to have back when the state was allowed into the union.