Primaries

[Desperado †]

With the Tories staging a historic open primary election for the first time in Britain, which could possibly spark a flame to set our electoral system ablaze with the new idea, or (if few turn out to vote due to how it's been rushed through) dampen the whole idea, I thought it would be of merit to start a thread on it.

Let's face - it primaries are, all in all are an excellent, democratic idea. It takes more power from the parties (and lets face it, far too few party officials wield far too much power in the running of Britain) and gives it to the people, and ensures an overall fairer democracy. I'm sour to the idea of open primaries, simply because those in opposition to a party might go and vote for who was regarded as the less able candidate - and hence put the party at a disadvantage in the next election. Closed primaries stop this, though without taking the power from the people. I think that such a change is just what we need in our out-dated British democracy, and will also help wash out the stain of distrust people have in politics following the expenses scandal. Rather than weaken the power of parties, I think that this will make parties all the stronger and more in touch with their supporters as well as clean out some of the corruption and hierarchy that can be found within the system which taints their reputation and the reputation of politics on a whole.

[Sphere]

I think the common concerns over a open primary never really come to fruition. The vast majority of voters are lazy, and the idea that they would take their time to cast a "sabotage" vote doesn't fit with reality. (My state has open primaries and this sort of thing is non-existant)

Even in the most recent US primaries, Rush Limbaugh tried to mount "Operation Chaos" where he called for Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton (as McCain had already locked up the Republican nomination), because he thought she would be an easier candidate to beat. Needless to say it didn't work. The general public is apathetic enough as it is, getting them to vote for somebody on the off chance that it may marginally improve their parties chances is asking to much.

[Da Skinna]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1230775/

Preston Manning talking about the closed nature of Canadian elections.

[Astaroth]

I like the idea of primaries because it shifts power from a few high-ranking party officials to the actual voters. It's much more democratic if the people have a say in who gets to run for office.

I'm not necessarily opposed to open primaries, either. After all, the registered party members make up for a rather small percentage of the electorate which means that closed primaries aren't all that democratic. Furthermore, moderates would have a hard time being nominated, even if they technically stood a good chance in the actual election.

While open primaries could of course be manipulated to an extent, I don't think that this is very likely to happen. Most people don't even go to their own party's primaries so I doubt that they would sabotage other primaries.

[Каие]

Open primaries? It's a rubbish idea. One of these ''headline grabbing'' ideas that in practise is stupid. Why should non-Conservatives get to choose the Conservative candidate? It's ridiculous. Primaries should only be done and including the votes of local Conservative members for their local Tory candidate.... that's how it's been done now in local Tory associations since Cameron took over.... or alternatively allow people, when they register to choose one of the three main parties, and be able to vote in their primaries.

[Astaroth]

Open primaries? It's a rubbish idea. One of these ''headline grabbing'' ideas that in practise is stupid. Why should non-Conservatives get to choose the Conservative candidate? It's ridiculous. Primaries should only be done and including the votes of local Conservative members for their local Tory candidate.... that's how it's been done now in local Tory associations since Cameron took over.... or alternatively allow people, when they register to choose one of the three main parties, and be able to vote in their primaries.

You have to keep in mind that party members only make up for a rather small percentage of the actual voters. Candidates which are (only) supported by the party members might not do all that well in the election.

[Каие]

So? If you can't be bothered to join a party, pay the membership fee and get involved... you should have no say whatsoever in what that party chooses to do. I'm tired of the something for nothing culture.

[Astaroth]

So? If you can't be bothered to join a party, pay the membership fee and get involved... you should have no say whatsoever in what that party chooses to do. I'm tired of the something for nothing culture.

I think it would be more democratic to have open primaries as it shifts the power from the parties to the actual citizens.

[Каие]

A political party is a private, not public, organisation. Thus only it;s members should have the right to deal in it's internal affairs. Since they pay a MEMBERSHIP FEE. If you wish to decide how a party chooses it;s candidates, join it.

[Astaroth]

A political party is a private, not public, organisation. Thus only it;s members should have the right to deal in it's internal affairs. Since they pay a MEMBERSHIP FEE. If you wish to decide how a party chooses it;s candidates, join it.

I understand your point but since one of the candidates will eventually be elected, the primaries have a considerable impact on everyone. I simply don't like the parties having so much power and would prefer more democracy.

[Каие]

Too bad. If you wish to influence the party choice, you must join the party. Otherwise, if you wish to have a say over all the candidates, start your own party, or stand yourself. I'm sorry but what you;re demanding is ludicrous.

[Astaroth]

Too bad. If you wish to influence the party choice, you must join the party. Otherwise, if you wish to have a say over all the candidates, start your own party, or stand yourself. I'm sorry but what you;re demanding is ludicrous.

There are many US states with open primaries, it isn't all that uncommon.

[Каие]

In the US you must register as a Democrat, or Republican, to be able to vote in their Primary. Some stats allow registered Independents to vote.

[Astaroth]

Yes, but you do not have to be a member of either of the parties. Furthermore, in some states registered voters can also vote in the primaries of the other party.

[Каие]

Which is why I said above, in my first post, that a registration option would be a little bit more acceptable.

[Astaroth]

Which is why I said above, in my first post, that a registration option would be a little bit more acceptable.

I agree with that, although I personally wouldn't mind if one was allowed to vote in the primaries of all parties if they wanted to.

Either way, as long as the primaries aren't restricted to party members it's fine with me.

[Каие]

Of course you wouldn't mind, because it isn't your party.

[Da Skinna]

It's obviously KB8's though...

From the article I posted:

“This is the first time any political party in Britain has sought the views of the voters [on who should be the party's candidate] in such a direct way,” said Conservative Party Leader David Cameron.

I think the good outweighs the bad. Look at the American election: Rush Limbaugh and other arch-conservative/demagogic radio hosts and pundits wanted people to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh called it Operation Chaos. It obviously failed.

In North America, it is the United States that has made greatest use of the primary system, which is why Canadian liberals and social democrats - pathologically averse to adopting U.S. political practices - are unlikely to embrace it.

But what about Canadian conservatives? If the British Conservative Party - far older and tradition-bound than any Canadian counterpart - can experiment with such democratic innovations, why can't Canadian conservatives?

The federal Conservative Party has recently tightened rather than opened its nomination process by permitting incumbents to avoid a nomination contest unless more than two-thirds of local party members vote for one. But if this should prove to be counterproductive, in terms of rallying party member support for the next election campaign or public support for candidates who are past their “best before” date, perhaps the British experiment with open primaries will find favour here.

[Каие]

That's exactly the annoying thing with primaries. Very few people will actually vote in Primaries, barely anyone votes in actual local elections, never mind voting to select the candidates of each party... so it will always turn out to be an ''Operation Chaos'' with a few dedicated people seeking to nominate the person they think will do least well for their enemy party. Politics is very adversarial here between more than 2 parties. The American example is hardly representative of us considering we have on average 6 parties who contest seats. Tories, Labour, Liberals, UKIP, Green, BNP, Commies and the resident local Independent. It's not an America 1v 1.

[Da Skinna]

In Canada *stupid accent* we have more than two parties!

Well we got the Tories and the Libs and the Greens and the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois and like three Indies.

The core to this is to make the process more democratic and get people to actually vote.