As you all know by now, Bernie is arguing that closed primaries are undesirable. In particular, he believes that independents should be able to vote, since any successful candidate must get their votes to win a GE.
It's not an unreasonable point of view. And he is right to oppose NY's draconian system of requiring that people update their party registration many months in advance of a primay. That's just stupid.
Full disclosure: I am a Hillary supporter this year, but I was for Barack in '08. I recognize the issues here with insurgents.
Does it really make sense for Repubs to vote in our primaries?
My answer is a clear and simple "no." If you're a registered Repub, please exit *stage right*. Don't let the curtain rope hit you on the way out. I think that's not too controversial.
Does it make sense for "independents" to vote in our primaries?
Ah, this is a bit trickier. It depends what you mean by the term "independent."
Since I have talked to over 2K voters (most during canvassing, many on the phone), I will just say this from my experience, about different varieties of "independents."
1) There are "independents" who are for all practical purposes "Hard Ds" and "Hard Rs." I.e. they register as independents, but they nearly always pull straight tickets in the general. Why? Either they are fooling themselves, or they would rather not have public voter registration rolls reveal that they are registered as members of one party or another. Political scientists call them "D-leaning indies" or "R-leaning indies."
2) There are "independents" who really do "vote the person, not the party." (Yes, I know that's bad grammar. But we love that sort of thing here in Indiana ;-) Realistically, most of these are "Hard Ds" who might vote for the occasional "iconic" R in a general, or vice-versa. Very few of them vote for a mix of Ds and Rs at the state and federal levels. (Local elections are a bit trickier.)
Under my proposed system, voters could register as D, R, or I.
But they could also check a box that says: "keep my party status private." It would be a FELONY for any election official (including poll workers) to disclose a voter's party status, provided that voter has checked the "privacy" box.
However legitimate campaigns and parties on each side would have access to the publicly-available voter list (just as they do now). Independents and other voters who have checked the privacy box will be listed as "U" (unknown) in the public lists. People who have NOT checked the privacy box will be listed as Ds and Rs.
Only Ds could vote in our primary, and only Rs could vote in theirs. (That includes folks who have checked the “privacy” box) People who wanted to register as Independents could not vote in either. However anyone could change their party status 60 days before an election.
Insurgent campaigns (such as Barack's or Bernie’s) would be faced with the challenge of registering voters, and/or encouraging existing voters with a "U" status to update their registrations (where nec'y).
This would end a lot of the “strategic voting” that’s so often associated w/ "open" or "semi-closed" primaries. Let me give you two examples from here in Indiana:
1) In '08, McCain had already pretty much locked up the nomination, by the time that the Presidential race came to Indiana. There were few "interesting" races on the GOP side. So all these Repubs took our ballots. Some of them voted vs. Obama because he was Af-Am, some of them voted against Hillary because she was a Clinton. Those people had no business whatsoever voting for our nominee. Virtually all of them voted for McCain in the general.
2) Had Bernie conceded by the date of our primary on the 3rd (and I'm NOT saying that he should have!), there would've been a huge flood of "hard Ds" who took GOP ballots and voted for the tea partier Stutzman in our Sen. race. They would've done so on the grounds that he would've been the weakest candidate to oppose Baron Hill (fmr. D9 congressperson).
I'm not for this kind of nonsense either way. Let the Repubs choose their best candidate, and let their voters make the choice. We deserve the same.
I will close by saying that Indiana's system is the "worst of all worlds." Our primary is completely open, and all we know is what ballot the voter chose during the last few elections. That gives us precious little info. when it comes to targeting. It benefits the Repubs, because they are the majority, and their odds of targeting a "hard R" are much better than ours of targeting a “hard D."
Hence we "spin our wheels" all too often, when trying to build universes of potential supporters.
I am very relieved by the energy of the Sanders supporters, and it helps us greatly that Bernie did not concede after the “Acela” primaries on the 26th.
When working for our downticket candidates here in IN, we will now know who is a genuine D. And had the Repubs settled on Trump a bit earlier, the "ballot choice" info. would be much less valuable.
For the first time in many years, we know know whom to contact for support in downticket GE races. All I can say is WOO HOO. That, however. is a series of lucky breaks.
P.S.: I am not commenting on the "non-partisan" systems adopted by LA and CA. I am just trying to propose a "closed" primary system that I feel works best for the parties, and which is fair to insurgents.