An open primary which does not require the voter to declare a party makes sense and would surely encourage some no-party voters to participate. It need be not be as complicated as some of the other states mentioned. Each party would still nominate its own candidate.
The system we have results in people like me voting with the D ballot for national races and being unable to vote on the local R races. (Since our county has so few D candidates, like many rural Iowa counties…) It’s wrongheaded.
Caveat: I’m not sure what the League of Women Voters system would allow… Perhaps someone can explain?
Lyle, look into Better Ballot Iowa. They and the League of Women Voters support ranked choice voting.
No party election worker as well. I think an open primary would improve voter turnout.
We have an open primary. The problem for voters is they have to pick one party only in whose primary they vote.
Rob Sand also believes that it’s wrong for non partisan voters to pay for elections they cannot participate in.
Well, they can participate in Iowa. But in order to do so, they have to surrender their no-party status.
Seems silly. What’s the rationale?
The rationale is that each party controls its own nominee.
Can’t see how D control helps if D candidates keep losing …They need independents badly.
An open primary which does not require the voter to declare a party makes sense and would surely encourage some no-party voters to participate. It need be not be as complicated as some of the other states mentioned. Each party would still nominate its own candidate.
The system we have results in people like me voting with the D ballot for national races and being unable to vote on the local R races. (Since our county has so few D candidates, like many rural Iowa counties…) It’s wrongheaded.
Caveat: I’m not sure what the League of Women Voters system would allow… Perhaps someone can explain?
What if? I'm gonna have to sleep on this one. Like a July 4th picnic, this is just too much food for thought. Pass the bromo.
😊