After Bernie Sanders Delegate Issue, Colorado Creates Open Primaries For Independent Voters

[portlander23]

Colorado Voting Rights: After Bernie Sanders Delegate Issue, State Creates Open Primaries For Independent Voters
Mary Pascaline
International Business Times

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed two ballot measures — Proposition 107 and Proposition 108 — into law Tuesday. The measures call for presidential primaries to be held every four years in the state and allow unaffiliated voters to cast their ballots in the primary elections.

Proposition 107 establishes presidential primaries in the state in which unaffiliated voters can cast their ballots without having to declare a party affiliation. The measure will cost counties about $5.3 million during the 2019 fiscal year but the state would reimburse at least $2.6 million of the total cost.

Meanwhile, Proposition 108 — approved by 53 percent of voters — provides unaffiliated voters with the option of choosing which party’s primary to vote in. The measure will increase spending by the secretary of state’s office by $160,000 but it's a one-time expenditure that allows for changes to the state’s voting systems. It will, however, cost counties about $750,000 every two years to mail ballots to unaffiliated voters.

During the 2016 election race, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders won 41 delegates in Colorado compared to his rival Hillary Clinton’s 25. A straw poll conducted in March this year found that 59 percent of the state’s voters preferred Sanders as president. However, both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in Colorado were embroiled in controversies, which increased demands to replace the caucuses with open primary elections.

Caucuses are insane, and we should make all primaries open.

[still_one]

1. I don't want people who do not WANT TO BE CALLED PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY to choose the

Democratic candidate.

If people have a problem been identified as being a Democrat, then let them go start their own party

[Me.]

2. Nor I

This is just like BS wanting to hand all kinds of advice and direction to the Dem party all the while refusing to join. It's a sort of don't do as I do just do as I say proposition.

[still_one]

3. Thank you. It is just plain BS as you said. The fact that someone dislikes the Democratic party so

much that they refuse to register as a Democrat, is reason alone why there should not be open primaries.

[Garrett78]

9. They don't wish to start their own party. Most "independents" are strongly partisan.

They just like being unaffiliated because they think it's more socially acceptable and suggests they're above partisanship. And some don't have the option where they live of being affiliated.

In reality, the vast majority of "independents" are more strongly partisan than party-affiliated voters of recent decades.

And a lot of young people (who constitute a very large bloc of the electorate right now) are especially inclined to register as non-affiliated. But many will register with a party by their late 20s.

I have no problem with open or semi-open primaries but caucuses need to go. Colorado's doing the right thing.

[still_one]

12. Not to be rude, but that "social acceptable" characterization is BS. No one is obligated to tell

anyone if they are registered with a political party, and if they want they can say they are independent, but actually be registered with a political party, no one will be the wiser, or frankly even care.

If someone wants to be unaffiliated, that is their right, but I don't want an unaffiliated voter determining my party's nominee.

[Garrett78]

13. And yet that's what numerous surveys show. I posted about this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512663884

Nobody said it was rational. But "independents" are not the non-partisan, wishy-washy or disaffected voters that so many assume that they are. They are, for the most part, very loyal to one particular major political party.

[aikoaiko]

17. I do. They may bring much needed insight and diversity.

[SharonClark]

4. No thank you - Dems should decide what happens in the Democratic Party

[Wounded Bear]

5. I've never been a fan of open primaries....nt

[NCTraveler]

6. IBT Ratfucking since their inception.

Deception simply doesn't matter to some. Or, it matters greatly.

More FUD.

[otohara]

7. Hillary Would Have Won A CO Primary

In a heartbeat just like she did in the WA state worthless primary vote - I don't give a fuck what this BS site says about Sanders - CO is barely blue and only 127,000 participated in caucus. Colorado Care went down in flames, Cory Gardner won in 2014 midterms against a really good man Mark Udall, Mike Coffman again cruised to victory over Morgan Carroll a Sanders progressive pick.

Older Hillary voters left - it was cold, crowded, couldn't hear squat when they were reading the rules. Then off to sit on floors and tiny chairs - it took 3 hours. My friend who left called it a shitstorm

I voted no on open primary because of the cost to the counties and outsiders who do nothing to contribute to the Democratic party except bitch can come in and pick our candidate. That's bullshit - in all my years of phone banking the Unaffiliated voters are the most uninformed folks I've ever encountered.

[Garrett78]

8. Yep. Undemocratic caucuses are the only reason the delegate count was even remotely close.

As is, Clinton essentially had the nomination wrapped up by mid-March.

[longship]

10. I agree about open primaries. They all ought to be open.

There are a significant number of states without party registration. None of those states can have closed primaries. My state is one of them (MI).

Let everybody vote!!!

[portlander23]

14. More people involved is a good thing

I know a lot of NY voters who were turned off entirely in 2016 because they wanted to be involved in the primary, were willing to declare as Dems, but didn't realize they had to do that 6 months before they even knew who their choices were.

I don't think the party can complain about voter suppression when we have laws like this.

[longship]

15. That's right. Open primaries everywhere is the only answer.

Let everybody vote.

PERIOD!

[Bradical79]

11. Hate caucuses, not sure about open primaries.

I think it's better than caucuses, but open primaries can lead to their own messy problems depending on external circumstances. Maybe better in some states than others.

[liquid diamond]

16. Fucking bullshit.

You would think after outsiders caused major problems in the last two primaries that laws would be enacted to allow only democrats to vote in our primaries.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Primaries should be closed.

The only other option is to eliminate primaries and replace them with a state convention making the decision or at the local county party.

[DanTex]

19. I support getting rid of caucuses. Closed/open I can see both sides.

I'm not sure what the "Bernie Sanders delegate issue" was, but without caucuses Bernie would have lost earlier and by a larger margin than he already did.