To me, the logical response to whether Democratic primaries should be open, semi-open, or closed can be answered with the photo above — but maybe not for the reason you’re thinking!
Most everyone is talking about the primaries in the current year’s scenario: both parties had multiple candidates in the running and it took many months to sort out who the winners would be, so if you lived in an open primary state, you probably still decided to vote for a candidate in your own party to make your voice heard to your party.
But what happens in years when there is NO primary for the Republicans??
Say a Republican President is running for his second term and no one primaries him, as is usually the tradition.
That means, if you allow Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries, those Republicans can happily vote for the Democratic candidate they think would be the best candidate to run against their own sitting president! Do you think they’ll vote for someone who actually has a chance to win??
NOPE. Rodent copulation will run wild.
Should the Democratic Party change the primary system? YES!
Should caucuses be tossed in the dustbin of history? YES!
Should the role of Super Delegates be discussed? YES!
Should registration deadlines be a lot more reasonable than New York? YES!
But should we let the Republicans help us select our nominee in a future year where we’re trying to take back the White House? No thank you!
Peace and love to everyone. Your thoughts, feedback, and comments are welcomed!
(Edited to remove a reference to discussing whether semi-open primaries are a good idea because it distracted from the main discussion.)