The goal is to win the election, not just the primary. When either party excludes the independents (NPAs) I think the candidate that tends to be nominated is often further left or further right than they would otherwise be. By letting NPAs participate in the nomination process, I think you increase the odds that the candidate nominated is more representative of that larger group and thus has a better chance in the general election. So YES, Democrats should open their primaries to NPAs.
Let 'em all vote! All the time, on all the things. Open primaries (at LEAST allowing NPA voters in any primary they want to use their vote in) would be perfect.
My opinion is that money (root of all evil?) is what's causing most of the political tug of war issues we face. If we removed the money factor from potential candidates and made it more equitable, I think we'd not only get more balanced candidates but it would negate some of these professional politicians (if there's no money in it, why would they bother?). They're supposed to be servants of the people, instead they're power hungry and lord over the common people.
I'm not opposed to either party, I'm opposed to the people who seem to be getting nominated in these parties. Independent non-political groups and corporations toss money at whatever candidate they want nominated and hands are greased behind the scenes to ensure it happens. The more money a particular candidate has, the more advertising power they have. More advertising means a better chances of winning. Why not put whatever donations are generated into a common pot and split it equally between candidates?
I propose taking the mud and money out of the equation and have each candidate only state what they believe and not tout what they think the other guy doesn't believe by providing equal amounts of advertising time which is donated equally across all media platforms. The candidate who spends wisely is the one we should vote for. Afterall, they're responsible for how our tax dollars are spent.
Primaries are part of the story albeit an important part. Another is election procedures. Ranked choice voting eliminates runoffs and encourages less partisan outcomes as Alaska shows.
The largest single problem, in my view, is the anarchic and obsolete election system itself, that encourages conflict and questioning voter identity.
Solutions can be seen in many countries, for example Brazil. There, national identity and biometrics are used, so nobody can claim voter fraud. Second, voting is mandatory, so voter suppression is minimal, impart because all voting is on a single day, a holiday. Public transportation is free that day in many cities.
In the US it is almost impossible to imagine a national standard voting process with secure and verified process, even more a national ID or mandatory vote. Our present system dates to 1790's and lends itself to widespread manipulation, corrupt or not. That is exactly why the legacy of Eldridge Gerry is so controversial. Of course he was one of only three who voted against the Constitution in 1787.
Too long is this post but I think we should try hard to establish a strong national non-partisan electoral system. Both recent immigrants and Mayflower descendants should favor a robust and honest national mandatory voting system. After all that will promote the democratic values that will help preserve our republic.
Everyone should be able to vote! I have voted on both sides of the aisle. Voting for the candidate and not necessarily the party should be the way to vote.
I would welcome an open primary. In NH, independents show up at the polls and declare which party’s ballot they want to vote. I am a registered Democrat but only because there is a local race that is weirdly a “partisan” office and so I had to pick a party in order to vote. I think it’s stupid, and I am sick of Democrats wringing their hands and worrying that Republicans will intentionally sabotage their primaries. Field candidates worth supporting and then get YOUR people to the polls.
I would prefer to be an NPA. I registered Democrat just so I could vote in primaries. I would prefer to see a top two or top four system for all elections.
Another idea is to signify parties with candidates but the rest of us are all just citizens casting a vote. Why are we divided into political parties? Let's just be concerned citizens trying to elect the best candidate and stop the divisiveness - I mean, who really cares if I'm a Democrat or a Republican? Do I get a lollipop for joining a specific party? Ultimately, it shouldn't matter what my views are politically. Doing this would alleviate the stigma for each of us and also allow us all to vote for each primary. We're only allowed to cast 1 vote anyways, what's the harm in that?
It has not been right for a very long time, plus money should have no part in this, most elections I have voted in , except the last presidential election because I didn't like either candidate and I don't want to be forced to just do two candidates, and also voting has lost its true purpose for a very long time, going back many generations, I shouldn't have to make a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, when honestly at this point the whole system that has been used and is currently used is because of all evil ways
The only purpose of primaries is to whittle down the number of candidates in a political party to one. What if that isn’t done? Then there might be dozens of candidates on the general election ballot.
What’s wrong with that? The typical voter will not make the effort to research each candidate. Therefore, let each party select who they want on the general election ballot. Why should they not have to pay for it?
In any election, the method that gives each voter their best opportunity to choose a candidate is ranked choice voting. The voter ranks each candidate in order of their preference. If no candidate achieves over 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. This continues until the last two candidates remain. The voter submits one ballot with their rankings; the elimination process continues automatically.
The only reason this is not the method in practice is because the party in control has determined that it would not favor their candidates.
Voters should demand ranked choice voting.
Gerrymandering
What is the purpose of having voting districts? Legislators are supposed to represent their constituents. The number of voters in each voting district should be approximately equal so that each legislator wields the same power.
A political party should not be allowed to pick their voters. There should be a formula to draw each district boundary, based on geography, as follows:
1. Determine how many districts should exist. There are currently 40 State Senate Districts, 120 State House Districts, and 28 Congressional Districts.
2. Divide the state population (currently 24 million) by that number.
3. Identify the centers of geography based on population density.
For example, using the 40 State Senate Districts, there should be 600,000 voters per district. It would be simple to devise a computer program that optimizes the distance each voter lives from 40 geographical points (using the Least-Squares or another optimization method) so that each district has 600,000 voters.
That eliminates all bias. But political parties WANT bias. That makes gerrymandering almost impossible to eliminate.
If you are seeing this post a second time, it is because I reposted it to fix a glaring typo caught by several early morning readers. My apologies.
The goal is to win the election, not just the primary. When either party excludes the independents (NPAs) I think the candidate that tends to be nominated is often further left or further right than they would otherwise be. By letting NPAs participate in the nomination process, I think you increase the odds that the candidate nominated is more representative of that larger group and thus has a better chance in the general election. So YES, Democrats should open their primaries to NPAs.
Florida should have open primaries that include NPAs.
Let 'em all vote! All the time, on all the things. Open primaries (at LEAST allowing NPA voters in any primary they want to use their vote in) would be perfect.
My opinion is that money (root of all evil?) is what's causing most of the political tug of war issues we face. If we removed the money factor from potential candidates and made it more equitable, I think we'd not only get more balanced candidates but it would negate some of these professional politicians (if there's no money in it, why would they bother?). They're supposed to be servants of the people, instead they're power hungry and lord over the common people.
I'm not opposed to either party, I'm opposed to the people who seem to be getting nominated in these parties. Independent non-political groups and corporations toss money at whatever candidate they want nominated and hands are greased behind the scenes to ensure it happens. The more money a particular candidate has, the more advertising power they have. More advertising means a better chances of winning. Why not put whatever donations are generated into a common pot and split it equally between candidates?
I propose taking the mud and money out of the equation and have each candidate only state what they believe and not tout what they think the other guy doesn't believe by providing equal amounts of advertising time which is donated equally across all media platforms. The candidate who spends wisely is the one we should vote for. Afterall, they're responsible for how our tax dollars are spent.
But, what do I know?
Primaries are part of the story albeit an important part. Another is election procedures. Ranked choice voting eliminates runoffs and encourages less partisan outcomes as Alaska shows.
The largest single problem, in my view, is the anarchic and obsolete election system itself, that encourages conflict and questioning voter identity.
Solutions can be seen in many countries, for example Brazil. There, national identity and biometrics are used, so nobody can claim voter fraud. Second, voting is mandatory, so voter suppression is minimal, impart because all voting is on a single day, a holiday. Public transportation is free that day in many cities.
In the US it is almost impossible to imagine a national standard voting process with secure and verified process, even more a national ID or mandatory vote. Our present system dates to 1790's and lends itself to widespread manipulation, corrupt or not. That is exactly why the legacy of Eldridge Gerry is so controversial. Of course he was one of only three who voted against the Constitution in 1787.
Too long is this post but I think we should try hard to establish a strong national non-partisan electoral system. Both recent immigrants and Mayflower descendants should favor a robust and honest national mandatory voting system. After all that will promote the democratic values that will help preserve our republic.
Everyone should be able to vote! I have voted on both sides of the aisle. Voting for the candidate and not necessarily the party should be the way to vote.
I would welcome an open primary. In NH, independents show up at the polls and declare which party’s ballot they want to vote. I am a registered Democrat but only because there is a local race that is weirdly a “partisan” office and so I had to pick a party in order to vote. I think it’s stupid, and I am sick of Democrats wringing their hands and worrying that Republicans will intentionally sabotage their primaries. Field candidates worth supporting and then get YOUR people to the polls.
I would prefer to be an NPA. I registered Democrat just so I could vote in primaries. I would prefer to see a top two or top four system for all elections.
Open primaries.
Another idea is to signify parties with candidates but the rest of us are all just citizens casting a vote. Why are we divided into political parties? Let's just be concerned citizens trying to elect the best candidate and stop the divisiveness - I mean, who really cares if I'm a Democrat or a Republican? Do I get a lollipop for joining a specific party? Ultimately, it shouldn't matter what my views are politically. Doing this would alleviate the stigma for each of us and also allow us all to vote for each primary. We're only allowed to cast 1 vote anyways, what's the harm in that?
It has not been right for a very long time, plus money should have no part in this, most elections I have voted in , except the last presidential election because I didn't like either candidate and I don't want to be forced to just do two candidates, and also voting has lost its true purpose for a very long time, going back many generations, I shouldn't have to make a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, when honestly at this point the whole system that has been used and is currently used is because of all evil ways
August 2026 will have both U.S. Senate and Congressional primary
Open primary with ranked choice voting produce the best candidates
We should adopt proportional representation in the US.
JC Bruce
Primaries
The only purpose of primaries is to whittle down the number of candidates in a political party to one. What if that isn’t done? Then there might be dozens of candidates on the general election ballot.
What’s wrong with that? The typical voter will not make the effort to research each candidate. Therefore, let each party select who they want on the general election ballot. Why should they not have to pay for it?
In any election, the method that gives each voter their best opportunity to choose a candidate is ranked choice voting. The voter ranks each candidate in order of their preference. If no candidate achieves over 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. This continues until the last two candidates remain. The voter submits one ballot with their rankings; the elimination process continues automatically.
The only reason this is not the method in practice is because the party in control has determined that it would not favor their candidates.
Voters should demand ranked choice voting.
Gerrymandering
What is the purpose of having voting districts? Legislators are supposed to represent their constituents. The number of voters in each voting district should be approximately equal so that each legislator wields the same power.
A political party should not be allowed to pick their voters. There should be a formula to draw each district boundary, based on geography, as follows:
1. Determine how many districts should exist. There are currently 40 State Senate Districts, 120 State House Districts, and 28 Congressional Districts.
2. Divide the state population (currently 24 million) by that number.
3. Identify the centers of geography based on population density.
For example, using the 40 State Senate Districts, there should be 600,000 voters per district. It would be simple to devise a computer program that optimizes the distance each voter lives from 40 geographical points (using the Least-Squares or another optimization method) so that each district has 600,000 voters.
That eliminates all bias. But political parties WANT bias. That makes gerrymandering almost impossible to eliminate.
Voters should demand this method.