RINO Michael Medved Supports Open Primaries

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Don

On today's broadcast RINO talk show host Michael Medved is advocating "open primaries" rather than party primaries. This means liberals and "moderates" get to chose Republican candidates for us. Isn't that nice?

His theory is that it will broaden political participation by the masses and will produce more Conservative Republicans. What?????

....

More fallout from the rising tide of registered voter with NO POLITICAL PARTY.

Here is an advocacy website on open primaries:

http://www.openprimaries.org/

And here are some Wikipedia entries on the subject of open primaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primary

An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party's ballot and vote for that party's nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the runoff election. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates appear on the same ballot and the two highest voted candidates proceed to the runoff, regardless of party affiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_pr..._United_States

An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party's ballot and vote for that party's nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the runoff election. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates appear on the same ballot and the two highest voted candidates proceed to the runoff, regardless of party affiliation. The constitutionality of this system was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008,[1] whereas a partisan blanket primary was previously ruled to be unconstitutional in 2000.[2]

....

Notice that the runoff is for just two candidates. This is more enforcement of the "two party system" infection on our political system. The supreme court has pronounced this constitutional, but I don't see how. There is no constitutional requirement that you belong to a party at all in order to qualify for election anywhere and open primaries do not appear to provide for that. It also enforces elections for a party to choose a candidate and that would most certainly be unconstitutional.

Open primaries are an absurdity that forgets the whole reason we have primaries in the first place which is to provide the public service of elections for political parties to choose candidates. But there is nothing that says the public should have to do that and it isn't even necessary that political parties have elections at all to choose their candidates.

Currently (in California) when you go to the polls for the primary election like the one we expect to have in June, the poll workers look up your name and see what political party you belong to and they issue you a ballot. But if you are "decline to state" you have the option of choosing a "decline to state" ballot with no party candidates on it, or some political parties are already allowing decline to state voters to vote with their ballots and participate in their party's election. But you can only choose one political party.

We don't need political primaries and this is becoming increasingly obvious, especially to "decline to state" voters.

Get rid of the primaries. And laugh in the face of people advocating open primaries.