Editor's Corner

For Closed Primaries

For years, many conservatives have agitated for closed primaries, based on the simple principle that Republicans should choose the Republican nominee, and Democrats should choose the Democrat nominee.

And as long as conservatives have made that argument, lunkhead establishment types have made the claim that in closed primaries, they might chose a true believer, a person who had no cross-over appeal. By having Democrats and independents participate in Republican primaries, we would be more likely to pick somebody who would be palatable to undecided voters.

To those who despise closed primaries, I give you Iowa, and Ron Paul.

Game. Set. Match.

The affirmative argument for closed primaries

  • Republicans should pick Republican nominees – it’s really this simple. Members of the high school football team pick the team captain. Included in those who don’t get a vote are non-athletes, and most certainly, members of the rival high school football team.
  • It’s not just red team against blue team – The Republican Party actually stands for something fundamentally different than the Democrat Party. I disagree that we should pick as a nominee the person most like the other side.
  • It is possible to persuade, rather than pander – I believe that the percentage of voters who are entrenched, unpersuadable liberals is not 40% to 45%, but probably 25% to 30%. I believe that eloquently presented conservatism, coming from a credible and likable candidate, can not only persuade the undecided middle, but convert some of the liberals who have not seriously considered the baseline principles of conservatism and leftism. One generation ago, Ronald Reagan, a movement conservative, toppled the feckless Jimmy Carter, then steamrolled the next election, winning 59% of the vote and 49 states.
  • This election, more than any before it, can showcase the difference between left and right principles – Since 2007, Democrats have had their way in Congress. Since 2009, they’ve had their way in all government. Right before our eyes, we see the result of operating under the Left’s principles, and the result of unprecedented corruption and cronyism. Disastrous results for which the Left can only provide excuses and try to lay blame elsewhere. This year, of all years, Republicans need not worry that they will offend undecideds by drawing a contrast. So, let this year be another test case like 1980, and see if the middle can be persuaded that our vision is better than that of the Left. We believe it is, or we wouldn’t be in this party now. would we?
  • There are bad people who take advantage — Open primaries allow not only unbelievers to have a voice, they invite meddling by those who mean us harm. It is a fact that most Democrats do not want Republicans to win elections. Allowing them to vote in our primaries means they can and will do their best to thwart the best interests of Republicans. In the current case, polls show that by and large, the Ron Paul voters are not Republicans and will not vote for another Republican in the highly likely event that Paul is not the nominee. Why then do we want them to participate in the Republican nomination process?

So, there it is. Let Republicans, and only Republicans, choose our nominee. Now and always. And thank you, Iowa and the PaulTards, for making my point for me.

E Pluribus Unum
The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete.

Pity, because I lived for it.
Tagged , ,

About E Pluribus Unum

The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete. Pity, because I lived for it.
View all posts by E Pluribus Unum →

5
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
RogueJadedByPoliticsbobmontgomeryE Pluribus Unumpilgrim Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
pilgrim
Editor

Another thing that is in play is defining the process as being closed. If the Iowa GOP is asked if the only ones who can vote are registered Republicans, then they will Yes this is true. When you dig a little deeper you find out the following. How old do you have to be to vote? Iowans who will be eighteen by Election Day 2012 (November 6, 2012) can vote in the Iowa caucus. Do you have to be registered Republican to participate in the Republican caucus? Yes. In order to participate in the Republican caucus, one must be a… Read more »

bobmontgomery
Member

You are so incredibly intolerant and exclusive, EPU! If Democrats want to be allowed in Republican events and are offended by copies of The Constituion lying around and discussions of limited government, then you will just have to be slapped with cease and desist orders until you change your policies, your ideologies and your attitudes, and, most importantly, your candidates. 🙂

JadedByPolitics
Admin

Well we knew Reince wasn’t going to be a conservative player in the GOP he was going to be a bought and paid for lackey and well, WE. WERE. RIGHT.!

Rogue
Member

This again goes back to the rise of the modern progessive era. One of the things they pushed for was primaries as opposed to caucuses. Forget open or closed primaries. Why should we have essentially non-participants choose the candidate anyway? Better return all states for all offices to caucuses. Consider what CW is always talking about for a moment. And what an uphill fight. But flip back to a caucus system and people begin to see the plain value in party participation. For myself, not only would I switch to caucuses, I would limit it to registered party members who… Read more »