Nevada Democrats block open primary bill

[TexasTowelie]

State Senate Democrats are blocking a bill introduced by a Republican that would switch from partisan to open primaries, allowing all registered voters regardless of party in Nevada to participate.

Senate Bill 103 introduced by state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, would have created an open primary process where the top two vote-getters in the primary move on to the general election. Currently, Nevada holds partisan primaries where only registered party members can vote, essentially keeping around 28 percent of registered voters – about 413,000 people – from participating.

Despite Democrats’ policy outline – called the “Nevada Blueprint” – expressly stating they would “Fight to ensure that voting is free, fair, and accessible for all eligible voters in Nevada,” Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford, D-Las Vegas, said Settelmeyer’s bill won't get a hearing.

“We don’t feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question,” Ford said during media availability on Friday, cutting off the inquiry as to why he felt that way.

Read more: http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/nevada-democrats-block-open-primary-bill/99701074/

[NurseJackie]

1. Good for Nevada! I also believe that Democratic Party business should be limited to only ...

... those individuals who are actual members of the Democratic Party. If someone cares enough to want to influence who's selected to be the Democratic Party's nominee, then they also care enough to join the party. These people chose to be "independent" or "unaffiliated" or "Republican" or "Green" or "Libertarian" for a specific reason.

If they're making bad decisions like that, I know for a FACT that I don't trust their judgement in choosing our party's nominee.

[Fresh_Start]

2. Be careful of top two voting

it could easily lead to having only GOP candidates in the general election.

[Gothmog]

3. Democratic primaries should be limited to members of the Democratic party

[George II]

4. As they should - why allow people who have zero time and effort invested in the Democratic Party....

....participate in choosing their candidates?

On the other hand, I hope they do go to a primary in lieu of the caucus, during which bullying and intimidation have been rampant.

[Cha]

5. Good!

Mahalo, TexasT

[Jim Lane]

6. Very misleading headine. It and the linked article are biased against Democrats.

The bill is not for open primaries, but for jungle primaries. The article smears the Democratic Party by falsely presenting Democrats' opposition as a betrayal of their stated platform.

Two different concepts here.

Open primary refers to who may vote in the primary. Each party holds a primary and nominates its candidate. Party primaries can be closed (only people registered to that party may vote), semi-open (open to people registered in that party and to people registered as independent/unaffiliated/no party preference, but not open to people registered in another party), or open (anyone may vote in any primary). The winners of the primaries face off in the general election.

This bill would actually implement something completely different, the jungle primary. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the same ballot. The top two, even if they're both Republicans or both Democrats, go on to the general election (unless a candidate in the original jungle primary gets more than 50% of the vote, in which case there is no further voting).

Consider a jungle primary in a district that is 60% Democratic and 40% Republican. There could be five or ten Democrats running and only a couple of Republicans. If no one Democrat has a big lead over the field, the Democrats could split the 60% fairly evenly, and the two Republicans, pulling 22% and 18%, take the top two spots. A Republican is guaranteed to win even if any of the Democrats could have beaten either of the Republicans head-to-head.

Consider also that, for all the RGJ's crocodile tears about voter participation, the jungle primary system can award the office based solely on voting in the primary, which usually has lower turnout.

There are good arguments for and against open primaries, but there is no good argument for this kind of shoddy journalism.

[TexasTowelie]

7. When I searched on the headline

the only other headline that was similar was from a radio station, KKOH-AM, where it read "Dems Reject Open Primary Bill". The story from that radio station was only one paragraph long.

While the Reno Gazette-Journal may be somewhat biased (it is a Gannett newspaper), I suspect that it is less biased than the Las Vegas Journal Review (Sheldon Adelson's newspaper) which didn't even cover the story. Most media sites between the Pacific Coast and the Northeastern states are biased, but I try to find liberal sources where possible.

The only other daily newspapers in Nevada are the Las Vegas Sun-Times, the Carson City Nevada Appeal and the Record-Courier out of Minden. It doesn't appear that Nevada NPR covered the story either.

I'm not saying that the newspaper isn't wrong about the headline or that it put the Democrats in a bad light, but intelligent people are capable of seeing the bias, particularly if they are aware of whether a news organization has a record for being biased. However, considering that the story isn't being reported anywhere else, would you prefer a slanted version of the story or not to read about it at all? If you know of a better source for Nevada news then I will gladly include it on my list of sites that I visit. Thanks.

[Jim Lane]

8. I wasn't criticizing you.

Sometimes on DU it happens that the DU member links to an article but gives the post a title different from that of the article. In those cases, the DU member can rightly be criticized if the new title is misleading. I confess that, as I clicked the link, I was ready to write "the OP is misleading" if you had done that -- but I followed the link and found that you hadn't.

It's worthwhile to post the Gazette-Journal story, as you did, but it's also worthwhile to point out its error.

You write that "intelligent people are capable of seeing the bias...." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is an actual concept of "open primaries". A person could be intelligent and yet not pore over the wording of the story closely enough to realize that this particular bill isn't about open primaries. There's just one brief passing mention that suggests otherwise. It was murky enough that I didn't post until I had clicked the link in the article, to an earlier story -- "Nevada lawmaker wants to get rid of partisan primary elections" -- that gave a fuller explanation (under an accurate headline). Note how many of the responses in this thread address the concept of an open primary, even though that's not the subject of the bill.

[TexasTowelie]

9. Thanks and I did not take it as a personal criticism.

I try to use actual headlines or include an extra word or two if it provides some clarification. However, every now and then I might have been known to make significant changes to include some snark or levity.

Your points about the headline, the story and the perception of other DUers is also well taken.