Open Primaries: A path toward a better America?

There are several ways people interpret the concept of "open primary lists," but I want to focus on one specific interpretation here...

What we’re really talking about is a system where you can cast a vote for an individual candidate or multiple candidates within a single political party's slate.

In this scenario, your vote counts toward the party's total, but it also goes directly to the specific candidate, meaning those with the highest individual tallies win seats in the US Congress rather than just following whatever order the party leadership decided beforehand. Essentially, voters actually have the power to reshuffle the hierarchy of the list itself...

With closed lists, however, the political parties dictate the exact order of names on the ballot, leaving voters to support the entire ticket without any real way to influence which specific individuals actually get assigned the seats.

Why does this matter? Let me give you an example... Say you're a loyal Republican Party voter, but there's a specific candidate—let's say someone like Jeb Bush—who you just can't bring yourself to support. If most Republican voters feel the same way, and the votes are tallied individually, that person ends up with the fewest votes and fails to make it into Congress, effectively ending their political career right then and there. It would make all that heavy drama surrounding the party leadership elections almost entirely pointless... and it works the same way over in the Democratic Party, too.

I honestly worry that by sticking with these "closed lists," we're essentially sentencing ourselves to a lifetime of dealing with the same incompetent politicians, just spinning our wheels in a loop with no way out... What are your thoughts on this? Beyond these entrenched political party monopolies, how do we even begin to fight for this kind of democratic progress? How do we actually implement "open lists" into the American electoral system?...

Could the moderators please look into adjusting this poll question, maybe by shortening the text so the whole thing actually fits on the screen without cutting off...

Perhaps we could phrase it more like: "Open party lists: voting for one or multiple candidates within a single political party?"

And if it makes sense to move this thread to a different subforum to keep things organized, I'm all for that too...

Thanks so much.

The fact that things have been so quiet on this thread lately makes me think that most people haven't even heard the term "open lists" before...

It’s the lesser of two evils, sure.
But let's be real—that system isn't exactly at the top of my list of favorites either.

Personally, I’m leaning toward the British system. It’s actually good enough to override my usual distaste for them.

The current crop of politicians isn't about to cut the very branch they’re perched upon... People continue to flock to these party lists following a model of obedience reminiscent of old-school collectivist regimes, which essentially makes them easy prey for manipulation—even if their private convictions suggest otherwise. It is an undemocratic practice that serves narrow, elitist interests under the guise of representing the majority. Ideally, we would see a system where individuals run on their own merits, leaving citizens to decide whether to support them, while the political party remains merely a secondary factor in the candidacy process. Instead, it seems we are destined to shoulder this particular burden, a cross we bear that is rooted deeply in our post-socialist legacy... 🙂

rowdyowl said:It’s the lesser of two evils, sure.
But let's be real—that system isn't exactly at the top of my list of favorites either.

Personally, I’m leaning toward the British system. It’s actually good enough to override my usual distaste for them.

Why call it the lesser evil?

Don't you think open-list systems would be a much better alternative than what we have right now?...

restlessbison6 said:The current crop of politicians isn't about to cut the very branch they’re perched upon... People continue to flock to these party lists following a model of obedience reminiscent of old-school collectivist regimes, which essentially makes them easy prey for manipulation—even if their private convictions suggest otherwise. It is an undemocratic practice that serves narrow, elitist interests under the guise of representing the majority. Ideally, we would see a system where individuals run on their own merits, leaving citizens to decide whether to support them, while the political party remains merely a secondary factor in the candidacy process. Instead, it seems we are destined to shoulder this particular burden, a cross we bear that is rooted deeply in our post-socialist legacy... 🙂

Man, you sure spend a lot of time thinking about communism, especially since that one guy actually helped secure American independence back in the day.

They aren't really communists, I think... they're just regular old crooks who find a way to grab power regardless of the system. I don't really get why it isn't obvious to everyone? Like, maybe that leader would have been a total liberal if he had realized he could get power that way...

gentlestag3 said:Man, you sure spend a lot of time thinking about communism, especially since that one guy actually helped secure American independence back in the day.

They aren't really communists, I think... they're just regular old crooks who find a way to grab power regardless of the system. I don't really get why it isn't obvious to everyone? Like, maybe that leader would have been a total liberal if he had realized he could get power that way...

flatoos, my focus isn't truly on the ideology of so-called communism—life back then was relatively stable enough for me—but rather on the lasting damage that particular individual inflicted upon the American citizenry. In the old United States, there were very few true believers in the cause; most others simply leveraged their membership in the Communist Party of the USA to secure personal gains and privileges, which reached staggering proportions within our borders, ultimately revealing the true nature of such individuals. Myself included...🙂

restlessbison6 said:flatoos, my focus isn't truly on the ideology of so-called communism—life back then was relatively stable enough for me—but rather on the lasting damage that particular individual inflicted upon the American citizenry. In the old United States, there were very few true believers in the cause; most others simply leveraged their membership in the Communist Party of the USA to secure personal gains and privileges, which reached staggering proportions within our borders, ultimately revealing the true nature of such individuals. Myself included...🙂

Then we end up thinking the same way again, but I don't think it's communism. Maybe it's just pure American greed? Like, the mindset of "I better grab this now, even if everything goes to hell later," rather than taking a chance to earn something so we can all prosper together down the road.

We don't really need these open lists or whatever; we just need the rule of law to actually work. Like, banning pre-election lies. Because right now, whoever's the best liar has the best shot at power, which is just... kind of absurd, isn't it?

If these new guys don't actually get anything done, then maybe we really should have just left the Republicans in charge. Then maybe people would finally lose it and start hanging lamp posts from the town square all the way to the main train station just as a warning to anyone else coming in.