George Washington's concerns of political parties have clearly gone unheard.
Forcing voters to pick sides before the field is reduced to two produces more polarized candidates. I doubt proponents of party exclusive primaries can honestly argue that this is a good thing for the state.
What an excellent presentation of the partisan, elitist, illogical attitude that is bringing our democracy down! There is just one little flaw in the logic: Private clubs govern their own business. In a democracy, government office holders represent ALL of us, not only those who insist that their private club has the right to control what our electoral choices are.
We are ALL members of the democracy club, and we ALL have a right to choose who represents us. Your private club is infringing on the rights of the most discerning segment of our population...the part that could save us all from the failures brought upon us by those who insist their private club rights be applied to our democracy.
There’s a lot of people, even “higher profile voices” outwardly bragging about flipping to a Party just to skew the particular Party’s election and then flipping back to their own. Big money is involved in all Parties. It would be a complete money take over to the highest bidder if Open Primaries happened.
I would agree with Mr. Hays if it weren't for two issues, the second of which several other comments have already addressed. The first issue is that SD elections are often one-party only. So there are too many instances where only republicans are fielding candidates who are still supposed to represent all of us, and you opinion is that all voters shouldn't have a say on which candidate should represent them? And two, there is significant cost to running elections and run-offs. Those tax payer funded activities should be open to all. Let the parties caucus, choose candidates, primary, whatever any way they want on their own dime. Once they have their chosen PARTY representative for the election, we the people, will gladly fund the election.
Parties are private organizations. Voting in someone else's Primary is merely an attempt to suborn someone else's organization, time, resources and effort.
Go build your own party if you think your opinion is that important.
These private groups should then pay and administer their own party exclusive elections. It's pretty rich to insist that independents pay for any part of an election they're not allowed to participate in because of a party label.
If they don’t want government control over their party then they shouldn’t be funded by tax dollars to run their primaries.
Political parties are leeches on the system. If they want to be private organizations then they should act like one.
Excellent article. Well stated.
George Washington's concerns of political parties have clearly gone unheard.
Forcing voters to pick sides before the field is reduced to two produces more polarized candidates. I doubt proponents of party exclusive primaries can honestly argue that this is a good thing for the state.
What an excellent presentation of the partisan, elitist, illogical attitude that is bringing our democracy down! There is just one little flaw in the logic: Private clubs govern their own business. In a democracy, government office holders represent ALL of us, not only those who insist that their private club has the right to control what our electoral choices are.
We are ALL members of the democracy club, and we ALL have a right to choose who represents us. Your private club is infringing on the rights of the most discerning segment of our population...the part that could save us all from the failures brought upon us by those who insist their private club rights be applied to our democracy.
Thank you Ezra.
There’s a lot of people, even “higher profile voices” outwardly bragging about flipping to a Party just to skew the particular Party’s election and then flipping back to their own. Big money is involved in all Parties. It would be a complete money take over to the highest bidder if Open Primaries happened.
I would agree with Mr. Hays if it weren't for two issues, the second of which several other comments have already addressed. The first issue is that SD elections are often one-party only. So there are too many instances where only republicans are fielding candidates who are still supposed to represent all of us, and you opinion is that all voters shouldn't have a say on which candidate should represent them? And two, there is significant cost to running elections and run-offs. Those tax payer funded activities should be open to all. Let the parties caucus, choose candidates, primary, whatever any way they want on their own dime. Once they have their chosen PARTY representative for the election, we the people, will gladly fund the election.
Solid.
Parties are private organizations. Voting in someone else's Primary is merely an attempt to suborn someone else's organization, time, resources and effort.
Go build your own party if you think your opinion is that important.
These private groups should then pay and administer their own party exclusive elections. It's pretty rich to insist that independents pay for any part of an election they're not allowed to participate in because of a party label.