2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAfter Bernie Sanders Delegate Issue, Colorado Creates Open Primaries For Independent Voters
Colorado Voting Rights: After Bernie Sanders Delegate Issue, State Creates Open Primaries For Independent VotersMary Pascaline
International Business Times
Proposition 107 establishes presidential primaries in the state in which unaffiliated voters can cast their ballots without having to declare a party affiliation. The measure will cost counties about $5.3 million during the 2019 fiscal year but the state would reimburse at least $2.6 million of the total cost.
Meanwhile, Proposition 108 approved by 53 percent of voters provides unaffiliated voters with the option of choosing which partys primary to vote in. The measure will increase spending by the secretary of states office by $160,000 but it's a one-time expenditure that allows for changes to the states voting systems. It will, however, cost counties about $750,000 every two years to mail ballots to unaffiliated voters.
During the 2016 election race, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders won 41 delegates in Colorado compared to his rival Hillary Clintons 25. A straw poll conducted in March this year found that 59 percent of the states voters preferred Sanders as president. However, both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in Colorado were embroiled in controversies, which increased demands to replace the caucuses with open primary elections.
Caucuses are insane, and we should make all primaries open.
still_one
(96,530 posts)Democratic candidate.
If people have a problem been identified as being a Democrat, then let them go start their own party
This is just like BS wanting to hand all kinds of advice and direction to the Dem party all the while refusing to join. It's a sort of don't do as I do just do as I say proposition.
still_one
(96,530 posts)much that they refuse to register as a Democrat, is reason alone why there should not be open primaries.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)They just like being unaffiliated because they think it's more socially acceptable and suggests they're above partisanship. And some don't have the option where they live of being affiliated.
In reality, the vast majority of "independents" are more strongly partisan than party-affiliated voters of recent decades.
And a lot of young people (who constitute a very large bloc of the electorate right now) are especially inclined to register as non-affiliated. But many will register with a party by their late 20s.
I have no problem with open or semi-open primaries but caucuses need to go. Colorado's doing the right thing.
still_one
(96,530 posts)anyone if they are registered with a political party, and if they want they can say they are independent, but actually be registered with a political party, no one will be the wiser, or frankly even care.
If someone wants to be unaffiliated, that is their right, but I don't want an unaffiliated voter determining my party's nominee.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Nobody said it was rational. But "independents" are not the non-partisan, wishy-washy or disaffected voters that so many assume that they are. They are, for the most part, very loyal to one particular major political party.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)SharonClark
(10,323 posts)Wounded Bear
(60,683 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Deception simply doesn't matter to some. Or, it matters greatly.
More FUD.
otohara
(24,135 posts)In a heartbeat just like she did in the WA state worthless primary vote - I don't give a fuck what this BS site says about Sanders - CO is barely blue and only 127,000 participated in caucus. Colorado Care went down in flames, Cory Gardner won in 2014 midterms against a really good man Mark Udall, Mike Coffman again cruised to victory over Morgan Carroll a Sanders progressive pick.
Older Hillary voters left - it was cold, crowded, couldn't hear squat when they were reading the rules. Then off to sit on floors and tiny chairs - it took 3 hours. My friend who left called it a shitstorm
I voted no on open primary because of the cost to the counties and outsiders who do nothing to contribute to the Democratic party except bitch can come in and pick our candidate. That's bullshit - in all my years of phone banking the Unaffiliated voters are the most uninformed folks I've ever encountered.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)As is, Clinton essentially had the nomination wrapped up by mid-March.
longship
(40,416 posts)There are a significant number of states without party registration. None of those states can have closed primaries. My state is one of them (MI).
Let everybody vote!!!
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I know a lot of NY voters who were turned off entirely in 2016 because they wanted to be involved in the primary, were willing to declare as Dems, but didn't realize they had to do that 6 months before they even knew who their choices were.
I don't think the party can complain about voter suppression when we have laws like this.
longship
(40,416 posts)Let everybody vote.
PERIOD!
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I think it's better than caucuses, but open primaries can lead to their own messy problems depending on external circumstances. Maybe better in some states than others.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)You would think after outsiders caused major problems in the last two primaries that laws would be enacted to allow only democrats to vote in our primaries.
LiberalFighter
(53,465 posts)The only other option is to eliminate primaries and replace them with a state convention making the decision or at the local county party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure what the "Bernie Sanders delegate issue" was, but without caucuses Bernie would have lost earlier and by a larger margin than he already did.