Clearly illustrated in this article.

More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.

Two of those states -- California and New Jersey -- together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.

The open voting is widely considered to benefit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, who have fared well among independents in recent polls and primaries. It also is reflected in Obama's words, from his outreach to Republican voters to his recent credit to Ronald Reagan in the context of elections that represent shifts in political direction.

"Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver," said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there."

Pitney and others said turnout will probably be high among independents because of the wide-open contests in each party. But it's tricky to predict the impact, they said.

I don't believe in open primaries. Call me old-fashioned, or just wedded to logical thinking, but it has always seemed to me that the nominee of the Republican Party should be picked by Republicans and that the Democrat nominee should be picked by Democrats. You know, just like the Libertarian nominee is selected by Libertarians, the Green nominee is selected by Greens, and the Communist nominee is selected by Communists (though today not the ones in Moscow). Independents, who are not committed to a party or its principles, don't belong involved in selecting a party's nominees. Members of one party should not be able to cross over with the intent of sabotaging the nominating process of an opposing party.

Why are closed primaries to be preferred? because party labels used to mean something much more significant that they do today. All too often, American voters complain that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates put forward -- and that is largely because of the involvement of undiffused independents in the process. Rather than campaigns based upon wedge issue, a system of closed primaries would offer mores stark, substantive differences (and therefore choices) on policy matters. And that, in turn, would help end the current system in which matters of style matter more to voters than matters of substance.

Besides -- it is we partisans who are the backbone of any campaign. We should be making the decision for our parties, not those without a commitment to it.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.