Texas Republican Party advances rule to close primaries.

[crone]

IMO, political parties are private clubs. Why must counties fund primaries?
Let the parties make their own rules for their members. Then pay for any election they have to decide on candidates.

[USNRET04]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Same. I don't think this changes much for me as I choose a party primary to vote in every year based on issues, candidates, etc. It does add an extra step though, which is rather annoying.

I hope South Carolina gets the nads and follows what Texas is doing.

What would be the reasons not to? It's just the primary, not the election.

[Seguinite]

Originally Posted by Dopo

Why is it that people are unable to criticize the republican party without also mentioning democrats?
This post has nothing to do with the democratic party

Who criticized anybody?? What did I miss?

[H'ton]

Originally Posted by Seguinite

Who criticized anybody?? What did I miss?

That's what I was wondering.


I think both the R's and D's are equally deplorable.

[Ilovetexas98]

In the past primary you had some democrats voting in Republican primaries to keep out Trump. Not hard to figure out why they’re doing this.

[crone]

Texas had a long standing tradition for republicans to vote in the D primary for the candidate most easily beaten by the R.

That went on for many years until the Rs got some contested races in their primary. If the Rs ever get contested races statewide I will surely vote in the R primary for anybody running against Cruz or Abbott. I'm fine with Dan Patrick, although he's also going off the deep end on this voucher mess.

[Seguinite]

Originally Posted by Ilovetexas98

In the past primary you had some democrats voting in Republican primaries to keep out Trump. Not hard to figure out why they’re doing this.

As a proud Texas Republican, I cast an anti-Hillary vote (for Bernie) in the 2016 Democrat primary.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by crone

IMO, political parties are private clubs. Why must counties fund primaries?
Let the parties make their own rules for their members. Then pay for any election they have to decide on candidates.

Actually, a very good point - if a primary 'election' is not open to all the registered voters in the associated district(s), why should the state be involved funding this? This is true for D or R.

[Need4Camaro]

Well, generally speaking, Texas isn't the only state with closed primaries. In fact the majority of states with closed primaries are actually Democratic states. I don't see them pushing to privatize the funding for their primaries either, and not seeing why it's a sin for Texas to do the same if NY, PA, DE, NJ, OR, NM, ect all have closed primaries.

TX R's are doing what's in their best interest, no different than any other party in their respective state that has done similarly.

TX D's are more than welcome to close their primaries as well in all fairness..

..As for who pays for it, that line is grey.. Personally I'm indifferent as the victor of a primary will have an overall impact to the state as a whole and no one is forced to lean or side to on particular party. I'm not a registered D or R but I can understand the concern of a registered R impacting a D primary election, and vice versa.

In my perspective, it's not entirely unfair.. ..just unfavorable..

[crone]

If passed will people have to declare their party affiliation when they register to vote. Or continue to switch back and forth as is the current custom.