Rules: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don’t attack other commenters personally and keep your language decent. If a comment violates our comments standards, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report abuse. To post comments, you must be a Facebook member.

9 Responses to “How do you feel about Ohio switching to an open primary?”

  1. Jim

    It defeats the whole concept of a primary election, which is to select the candidate(s) for a specific party. It opens the whole process up for fraud, but then I guess that shouldn’t surprise me since that has become the basis for all things political in this country anyway.

  2. Keewee Dozer

    Some of my friends be for the open primary, and some of my friends be agin the open primary, and by golly, I stand with my friends!

  3. John Q. Public

    I believe its a bad idea. My biggest concern however concerns the fact that many canidates running for office are running uncontested by any party. How can we be involved in a political process if nobody runs against the incumbent? This smacks of Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Argentina. If there is only one canidate, how is this parcticing democracy?

  4. Fred S.

    It’s a free country. If I want to switch parties for a given election, that’s my privilege. I’ll vote for whomever I want, in whichever party I choose, using a secret ballot. It’s irrelevant whether the primary is declared “open” or not.

    Otherwise, parties should fund their own elections with their own money, without taxpayer assistance. Nothing in our constitution says anything about political parties or guarantees them government support for their private candidate selection processes.

  5. Fred S.

    I know of no democrats who voted in republican primaries in ’08. The closely contested presidential race kept them in their own primary. Republican support of Hillary Clinton in the ’08 democratic primaries was a response to Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos,” not a move to counter democratic efforts to support moderate GOPers. In general, most crossover voters cast ballots for the extremes, strengthening candidates who would be less viable in the general election and increasing strife within the party that they oppose. They don’t cross over en masse to moderate the politics of the party they oppose.

    A better idea would be to have completely open primaries for our state and federal legislative positions and for local offices. Let the top two vote-getters face off in the general election regardless of party. This would truly have the effect of electing more moderate candidates who can work together instead of the right- and left-wing extremists we advance from party primaries under the current system. Extreme partisanship is crippling our government and must be ended.

  6. John C. Davidson

    I don’t see why this issue is even brought up at this time. For those who who don’t like either party, then they should align themselves with a third party if they so choose or get more involved with either of the two existing parties to help shape their future vision for this country.

  7. red dragon hawk

    i believe…that we should do away with parties alltogether,and that each candidate should actually run for office with whatever he or she has to offer in their own identity….they arnt going to win a grammy or an emmy for fooling the american public…playing a role to which they feel the need to conform is a disservice to the people and their own principles…. weve seen over and over again how that works….extremeisim will still help shape our scociety….but will be moderated by the people…not the candidate..or a party….i offer a primary at a local level…a secondary at state level and preliminary at national level with a final vote at national level this will ensure that the people have actually had a chance to speak

  8. John W

    A primary is a party event, not a “general public” event, except for issues that need to be voted on during primary season. As a Republican, I should have no say in, nor should I have the opportunity to have a say in, whom the Democrats choose to run for political office. And Democrats should not have a say in whom my party chooses to run for those offices.

    We saw in 2008 what happens when you have open primaries. John McCain was chosen as the GOP nominee because many Democrats voted in GOP primaries to eliminate the more conservative candidates that real Republicans would have chosen in a closed primary. And this sparked a number of Republican voters to vote in the later Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton, thus prolonging the campaign between Senators Clinton and Obama, which Obama would have wrapped up early if not for the open primaries.

    Keep the primary system in Ohio what it is supposed to be: the individual parties’ day to name their champions for public office.

  9. Jacob

    A primary is a political party’s method of choosing its candidates–so it should be up to the parties, and not the state, to determine how those candidates are chosen. If a party wants to restrict the choice to people who pledge themselves to be members of that party, then that’s fine. I know that independents often feel upset that they cannot remain unaligned while participating in a primary, but why should they be able to do so? If they want to help a party choose its candidates, they should join that party. Otherwise, they’ll have to sit the process out.