Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Primaries are internal matters for party to choose best candidate

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

James Frye. "Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Liberaland. June 9th, 2010: "The arguments for open primaries tend to go for the “it allows more voters to participate” line. That’s fine for November when everybody can vote for anybody. Primaries are (or should be) an internal function of the political parties. No one outside of nonpartisan offices are elected to anything on primary day: this is the chance for party members to decide who they think would be the best candidate for their party for the general election. If you want to participate, register to vote with a party affiliation. Doing that doesn’t mean that you have to vote for the candidates of the party exclusively and forever, it just allows you to help pick their candidates."


Adam Summers. "Open Primary Would Close Doors to Voter Choice and Participation." Reason Foundation. June 7th, 2010: "Political parties are nothing more than private groups. The Republican and Democratic parties may be larger than others, but they are nonetheless private organizations and entitled to establish their own rules to select their candidates for political office, even if that means not allowing people outside their group to influence those nominations. The government has no more right to dictate how political parties select their nominees than it does to determine how the local Rotary club, Chamber of Commerce, or religious organization chooses its leaders."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.