Home | About | Donate

DNC Chairwoman Alienates Independents With Defense Of Closed Primaries


DNC Chairwoman Alienates Independents With Defense Of Closed Primaries

Kevin Gosztola

The chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee said she “absolutely” believes the “party’s nominee should be chosen by someone registered with that party,” a statement which could further alienate independents who have tried to participate in the 2016 presidential election.

On the Bloomberg Politics show, “With All Due Respect,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz declared, “We should not have independents or Republicans playing games.”


Our two state religions, Republicanism and Democratism, should be scuttled.


This is VERY encouraging, considering the stranglehold imposed by the Status Quo duopoly owners:

"Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to support the two-party system. In September, Gallup also released a poll that showed 60 percent say a major third party is needed for “adequate representation.” Seventy-eight percent of independents said there should be a major third party."


From the article:
Sanders blasted the closed primary in New York, “You’re paying for this election. It’s administered by the state. You have a right to vote."

Sanders is correct, but does not go far enough: The state has no business paying for and administering the political party candidate selection primaries and caucuses.

Since the state is paying for it and administering it, no voter should ever be locked out.

Given the grip of the duopoly, most people never stop to ask "Why is the state running the political party candidate selection process?"


Some effing democracy.

If they cheat Bernie out of the nomination, I'm voting for Trump.


DWS, what a piece of work. I didn't think there was anyone who could make my skin crawl more than Ted Cruz but DWS just did.


"... how about doing elections the way that city elections (at least here where I live) are done? there is no party designation at all and all the candidates are on the ballot. OR same day voter registration where voters can choose which party they which to affiliate with, or... I'm sure there are other great ideas out there."

There should be no state involvement in any party process. And there is no need for any primary ever. We need to get the state out of party processes, and end the "plurality voting" system that enforces a duopoly.

Anyone should be eligible to run for office, by meeting the basic qualifications: Citizenship, age, residency, and a certain number of petitions.

Political parties are free to choose their own party candidates for any office, as long as they qualify them for the ballot by gathering the required petitions.

Allow all qualified candidates onto a single ballot. Allow all voters to express their preferences for every candidate on the ballot. Use score voting: Each voter scores every candidate: the candidate with the highest total score, is the candidate with the highest voter preference, is the candidate elected.

The entire charade of party primaries and caucuses administered by the state, is purely to reinforce the duopoly.


I would expect nothing less from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She got into office thanks to the corrupt gerrymandering in Florida. If she had had to face a real contest for her House seat, it is unlikely that she'd fare well. Of course, she's quite pleased with any system that serves to limit voter choice and decide contests before they've even begun.

Sanders should send out fundraising blasts for one of the two people challenging DWS in the primary.


Dear Debbie: You are everything I despise about the "leadership" in the Democratic Party - arrogant, entitled, and absolutely clueless.

Just for starters - explain why it is that you would not wish to invite more potential participants into the political process by excluding them from voting in the primary of their choice? At the very least, if you would like to see your party's candidate go on to win the general election - wouldn't you also like to see as broad a swath of the general electorate as possible .... participate in choosing that candidate?

The Democratic Party's attachment to restricting the ability to vote in its primary to "Party Loyalists/Insiders" has contributed to a growing anger among more than just millennials about our broken political process. And denied a positive outlet for those feelings, the latest polls indicate that many are turning to embrace the negative. The latest trend in the numbers indicating that Donald Trump might actually defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election could potentially be more than a temporary blip in the polling.

Congratulations, if the Democrats lose this election they will have only themselves to blame. Go ahead and point the fingers of one hand at the GOP and laugh if you'd like to, just as long as you take the other hand and point it back at yourselves. The Right is imploding in real time, on national television, and to the vast amusement, and total terror, of most of the world.

But the rot at the core of the Democratic Party is at least as dangerous to Democracy in the United States as the obvious insanity that prevails in the GOP. You should kneel down and kiss Bernie Sander's feet - because without him in this race we could sit back and watch Democracy shrivel and die in this country.

So do us all a favor please, and just shut up? And tell the rest of the "Democratic Leadership" to do the same. You are reinforcing every single stereotype we have in this country about the level of intelligence and integrity that we can expect to see in our Talking Heads. This is our election and not yours.

And Silence is Golden.


Or write Bernie in.


Whether primaries are open or closed is up to the states. There are pros and cons for both types. But it is the caucuses that result in the lowest voter turnout by far. But caucuses favor the more progressive candidate Obama won just about every caucus in 2008, perhaps he did win them all, and Sanders has won almost every caucus. There could be nothing more stupid then progressives challenging the way primaries are run by the Democrats and talking about disenfranchisement. Seriously, how dumb can you get? The first thing to go will be the caucuses, which strongly favor progressives. The primaries do not favor the establishment. Based on popular votes Clinton would have far more delegates than she has but because Sanders won so many caucuses with low voter turn out he is doing much better with pledged delegates than he would if only the popular vote mattered. In 2008 Clinton actually won the popular vote but still was behind in pledged delegates. The voting as a whole favors the most progressive candidate because of the caucuses but of course the outcome is determined by a number of factors.


In the matter of Hillary's supposed lead in the popular vote, a disingenuous piece of legerdemain if ever there was one. Fortunately Rob Kall at OpEd News looked into this claim, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-s-Disingenuous-Cla-by-Rob-Kall-2016-Presidential-Primary-Candidates_Hillary-Clinton-160401-967.html This piece is from the beginning of April.

Here's a taste of his analysis:

"Technically, it's accurate, but that's because of the nature of the primary election in many states where there are caucuses. In Caucus states, a lot less people participate in the voting because of the time involved. But those delegates represent millions of people."

"If you do the math on all the caucus states, Bernie's wins could easily represent populations that exceed Hillary's 2.5 million votes, not even including the primary state votes he won. It is insulting to the people of Washington to suggest that they be counted based on the 26,000 who voted in the caucuses.
Because Minnesota is a caucus state, Bernie only gets an advantage of 45,000 when it should be hundreds of thousands. The same is true in Kansas, where he only gets credit for 14,000 advantage, when it should be at least 80,000. Colorado would give him a 23,000 advantage based on caucuses, but he should get at least a 120,000 advantage based on population.

This applies to the following caucus states that Bernie won, Washington, Utah, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, representing about 32 million people.
Bernie won many of these by 60, 70, even 80%. Of course some are primarily conservative, which has an effect on the numbers. Let's say that Democratic leaning voters represented 45%, which would be 14.4 million. If Bernie won with an average of 60 to 40% that would be a 20% difference, or 2.9 million. Of course voter turnout has to be figured in.

Let's compare Massachusetts with Minnesota. MA has about 6.7 million people. Minnesota has about 20% less, with 5.5 million. Hillary won MA by a 1.4% margin. Bernie won MN by a 23.4% margin. Hillary gets 17,000 margin for her miniscule margin win. Bernie, with a margin thats gets 44,000. A proportional accounting, for a state that large would give him close to 750,000, or 700,000 more. The same kind of math applies to all the caucus states mentioned above.

The truth is that using popular vote numbers is a deceptive way to talk about comparing campaigns. An honest candidate would not attempt to do so. Clinton embraces it."


It should NOT be up to the states OR to the parties. They are paid for with public taxpayer dollars and therefore should be open to all citizens.
If the parties want them to be closed then they should foot the bill, NOT us.

Great article here: http://endpartisanship.org/why-political-parties-control-elections/


But the point you make in your comment is the point Sanders was making.


By what metric was there low voter turnout at the caucuses? Did you see photos from any of the caucuses? For example, there were mile-long lines with people trying to get into the caucuses to participate.


Excellent comment.

Sanders is breathing new life into the Democratic Party. Far, far more than Hillary Clinton.


Thanks Kevin. But i'm not sure, from Sanders' statement, that he would agree with my assertion that "The state has no business paying for and administering the political party candidate selection primaries and caucuses."

Perhaps he is implying that, but he only notes that since the state is paying for and administering the selection of party candidates, everyone should have the right to vote in the party process.

We need major electoral reform in the USA, and getting the state out of party processes is one of the basic needed reforms. My other post goes into a bit more detail.


After going back and rereading what you wrote, I understand now. Yes, you are making a different point.


Oh dear God. Will the people of the 23rd Congressional District in Florida PLEASE vote this woman OUT? The issue is bigger than her, clearly, but just for starters that would be a grand relief.


The independents themselves would divide into two, three, ten parties. There is not a coherent independent political tendency.