No one can win the WH without the independent vote.
It makes sense for NY, a blue state, to allow all of her citizens to have a voice in choosing the candidate for which they would vote.
Don't you think Hillary would win anyway? She's the strongest candidate, right?

Independents chose their status. My feelings go beyond one election.

there's another election in November. A general election against Republicans and we need independents on our side in order to win. We don't need them sitting at home. We need them at the polls.
What better way to tell them that they're respected and appreciated than to allow them to help us select a candidate that will motivate them in Nov?
Isn't Hillary fired up? I thought she was lighting up the indy vote...

...but even I think that's conceit.

I'm happy we have closed primaries. It makes sense to me that Dems get to decide the Dem nominee.

Isn't Hillary the strongest candidate? Why would anyone be fearful of her getting even more votes in the primary from motivated independents on fire for her dynamic campaign?

It's about letting the party decide what the party does. It makes no more sense to me to let Independents (and Republicans) to vote for our nominee than it does to let them write the party platform. If everyone has a say, what's the point of even being a party?

It's a function of citizens. Any political party should be glad to have more voters voting in their elections since that would signify a more precise reflection of the will of the people.
Hillary is doing well with independents, isn't she?
What about same day registration? Is that ok?

Let's imagine that the Republicans have already settled on one person, and their nomination is a foregone conclusion. If the remaining states had open primaries, what would be stopping Republicans from flooding into the Democratic primaries and working to ensure that the candidate they would rather run against gets nominated? That seems to me to be the very opposite of reflecting the will of the people, and it's the kind of dirty politics that can't happen in a closed primary (not without massive amounts of forethought in a state with an early deadline like NY).

So what does it matter who the GOP votes for in a Dem primary?
Everything I hear coming from the Sanders camp says that the Dems are much more civilised than the GOP and that either candidate can win in November. That's the real point, right? To win in November?

... it was to ask what right a Republican should have to pick the Democratic nominee? If this was a three-way race right now, with a third candidate who had little appeal, Republicans could theoretically prop that person up and get them enough delegates to create a contested convention, which would set the party back significantly in getting the general election campaign rolling.

Going back to something you mentioned earlier; yes, voting is a right, available to all. Picking who you are able to vote for is not.

we have TWO great candidates. Republicans couldn't derail us if either of these candidates would defeat a Republican in the general, right?

And, like I said above, isn't that the point? To win in November? And don't we need independents in November?

I understand what you're saying but it seems like there's a reason that you don't want to engage independent voters in the primary.

I think Republicans would really rather run against Hillary Clinton to tell you the truth. Despite her obvious strength and charisma it seems like they are well versed in rhetoric that would be effective to motivate their base against her.

Getting independents voting for Dems now only seems like it would strengthen us in November.

You're asking a specific question about opening up THIS primary, and I'm talking about the ramifications down the road of what could happen in subsequent primaries. The unintended consequences are important to think about, and they're why I would struggle to support opening our primary doors.

Four years from now, it wouldn't be fair when only the Republicans are running a primary to have all the Democrats in the country voting to pick the worst of the worst Republican.

...except that other states seem to manage just fine with open primaries.

I'm very much a Democrat but we should acknowledge the fact that there are more unaffiliated voters out there than any party registrants these days. 42% of voters are independents. It seems unfair and foolhardy to shut them out. Why not make our party more attractive to them?

we should just shut down the party altogether, and let people run independently however they like. That would certainly appeal to the independent voter.

The party exists for more than one reason but, I think, primarily to establish a platform of ideals. Without that there would be little toward which to rally. The party doesn't control how people run now. I don't really think that's why it exists. It exists to get people to vote for that type of agenda that most closely resembles the platform of ideals. For that reason I think that the states should ensure that anyone who identifies with that set of ideals should get a chance to vote for the candidate that most clearly articulates their plan to push the agenda. Closing down the party would eliminate the platform and throw our common goals into the miasma.

I think that the states should ensure that anyone who identifies with that set of ideals should get a chance to vote for the candidate that most clearly articulates their plan to push the agenda.

You're talking to a lifelong party member, age 42.
It's a difference of opinion.
I think that the risks would be negligible and that the vote would be stronger.
I'm also in a closed primary blue state. This is an honest opinion.