The Instigator
fb-debate
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SomethingOrdinary
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Political Party Primaries be Open [to all, Regardless of affiliation]?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 118607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

fb-debate

Con

Many voters want political party primaries open to all, Whether affiliated or not.
However, Political parties are "membership" "clubs" - albeit free to "join".
Are you a member of any closed membership organizations (whether free or paid)?
Are your leadership elections open to the public?
Why should these "membership clubs" allow non-members to vote for their candidate?

If you think they should, What are your reasons?
SomethingOrdinary

Pro

I should start by saying I don't belong to any political party necessarily, But I guess you'd characterize me as Libertarian for lack of a better term to label me with. I also don't belong to or attend any primary in particular and I emphasize that I don't think the government should by any means enforce primaries to be open to everyone, But rather I feel personally that Political Party Primaries should be open, Or at the very least it would be beneficial if they were.

My first reason being that it would allow for a better representation of what and who the country in general is looking for in a candidate as opposed to limiting the sample population to one with a clear bias (i. E. Registered party voters in a specific primary).

Secondly, I am in general very much opposed to the concept of political parties (factions) and the concept of 'voting your party', So I see opening up primaries to everyone could potentially lead to less of a party 'bias' taking precedent and more of an emphasis on candidates individual beliefs and ideas on shaping policy (meaning there would potentially be less sacrificing of ones own beliefs for the sake of getting your parties candidate into office versus the opposition).

Third, With that all being said I think for the most part if primaries were to remain as they are, Regional and local events put on primarily for the people of the communities they're held in (like the Iowa Caucus or any other for instance) then the results probably wouldn't change that much given the generally accepted and held views of the people in each respective area (so in other words, Even if you did open them up I don't think you'd see that much of a difference anyways therefore undermining the potential threat someone against this stance might point out).

Now you could argue that political parties are important in keeping with someones ideals, And giving them a platform to stand on in terms of political belief, And you could also argue that having closed primaries is not only a right of its members, Both current and prospective who choose to engage in such behavior and you could even argue further that these primaries would then allow each party to come to a consensus of who 'they' want to be their candidate. All of which are fair points.

Now with that in mind though I have to insist that for one, I don't debate the legality and right of every citizen to form, Or be a part of any type of club, Either political or otherwise so long as they don't engage in the suppression of any one else's liberty or constitutional rights. This concept is after all protected in the constitution as your right to assemble. I suppose my argument stems from an utter disdain for the concept of a political party or political 'factions' as coined by James Madison in his Federalist Papers, And I'll explain why they're bad. . .

I feel that political parties in general and more specifically their members following the party ticket regardless of what that entails is a major factor in the division of a nation and its people. And so given that belief I feel that opening up primaries to any and all political group to vote on could at least in some small way degrade the emphasis on political division and allow people to focus more on the candidates themselves and how they intend to shape policies on each individual issue. The benefit of this goes back to my point on not having to sacrifice one's own views on a particular issue if it doesn't align with that of the party they belong to.

Furthermore, Scrutinizing politicians over individual issues on a broader stage early on in the process would allow for better vetting of candidates, And require that a prospective candidate be truly well versed on a particular issue, Or at the very least demonstrate a level of character that would guide them to making a choice we could all get behind, As opposed to the current system of touting pre-designed political ideology and focusing more on beating the other party than actually working together and fixing issues in our society.

I also theorize that this new way of thinking could even lead to a lessening of the political polarization that exists today given how people themselves would be encouraged to think more about each individual issue as opposed to which party they claim allegiance and what that implies about them.

Granted I'm not too optimistic about that last part working but here's to the possibility of a better tomorrow.

Thank you for the prompt, I look forward to hearing back from you.
Debate Round No. 1
fb-debate

Con

fb-debate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
fb-debate

Con

fb-debate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fb-debate 3 years ago
fb-debate
Perhaps I can repost as a new debate. . .
Posted by fb-debate 3 years ago
fb-debate
Hi SomethingOrdinary, Thank you for engaging. I apologize for letting things slip.

Your arguments are all good but do not provide a compelling argument or address the issue presented as you admit that political parties are 'membership clubs' and have the right to closing their proceedings to 'outsiders'.
Your statement regarding "these primaries would then allow each party to come to a consensus of who 'they' want to be their candidate" supports the original premise.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.