Independents voting in primaries.

[kmorse11]

I know in some states they already can. But here in CT, we have closed primaries. Which is strange considering around 40% of voters are not registered with a party.

[I left.]

Theoretically speaking, I'd be against allowing non-members of a party a vote in choosing that party's leadership or candidate for an election.

But the United States doesn't have real political parties like other countries do.....so one might view the primary system as something similar to the first "round" of an election.

Still, my answer is no. You can "register" with the party if you want to vote in its primaries.

[N.i.K.]

In practice, I think that open primaries are beneficial if they are considered a boon for my candidate. I am hypocritical there, however.

In terms of my position, though, I am generally against open primaries with independents choosing the way that a party nominates its candidates, as they are not formal members of the party.

[True Federalist]

Theoretically speaking, I'd be against allowing non-members of a party a vote in choosing that party's leadership or candidate for an election.

But the United States doesn't have real political parties like other countries do.....so one might view the primary system as something similar to the first "round" of an election.

Still, my answer is no. You can "register" with the party if you want to vote in its primaries.

In South Carolina you "register" by voting in the primary.  If the parties want truly closed primaries, then they, not the government, should be the one to pay for the expense of running the primary.

[I left.]

Theoretically speaking, I'd be against allowing non-members of a party a vote in choosing that party's leadership or candidate for an election.

But the United States doesn't have real political parties like other countries do.....so one might view the primary system as something similar to the first "round" of an election.

Still, my answer is no. You can "register" with the party if you want to vote in its primaries.

In South Carolina you "register" by voting in the primary.  If the parties want truly closed primaries, then they, not the government, should be the one to pay for the expense of running the primary.

Absolutely, I agree with that.