Some lawmakers are proposing that Oklahoma go away from a closed primary system. What do you guys think about this? I personally think we should keep a closed primary system.....afterall, what business does a democrat have voting in a repulbican primary, and vice versa. All an open primary system does is allow the other party members to try to damage who party members want to choose as their choice for the final election.

What do you think?

-------------
"Lawmakers suggest changing closed primary system
by Ray Carter
The Journal Record
9/3/2004

Oklahoma's closed primary system prevents thousands of voters from having any voice in elections across the state and should be amended, two state legislators argued Thursday.
"Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Reformists - whatever the political affiliation, they're being excluded from some election somewhere in Oklahoma," said Rep. Larry Ferguson, R-Cleveland.

Under current Oklahoma law, only individuals who register as members of a political party are allowed to vote in that party's primary elections.

In many local and county races, however, all candidates for an office are members of a single political party, meaning voters who are not registered with that party cannot choose who serves in local offices, Ferguson noted.

For example, he noted that during the July 27 primary election, former state Rep. Leonard Sullivan was elected Oklahoma County assessor exclusively by Republicans, since the only two candidates for the office were both Republicans. Consequently, more than 200,000 Oklahoma County residents - 157,844 Democrats, 45,183 Independents, 106 Libertarians and seven Reform Party members - were excluded from voting in that race.

In Pawnee County, the sheriff was elected July 27 solely by Democrats. The same situation prevailed in neighboring Noble County where the only candidates for sheriff were Democrats.

"The sheriff is an important officer; he is responsible for preserving the peace and protecting the lives and property of everyone in the county," Ferguson said. "Yet 41.5 percent of all the registered voters in Pawnee County, a little over half of the registered voters in Noble County, and more than one-third of the registered voters in Osage County, were precluded from voting in their sheriff's race."

Furthermore, Ferguson noted, less than half of the eligible Democrats in Noble County voted in the sheriff's race in the primary.

Rep. Dale DeWitt, R-Braman, echoed Ferguson's observations. Almost 54 percent of the registered voters in Kay County, and more than 56 percent of the voters in Blaine County, were precluded from participating in the election of their sheriff because only GOP candidates filed.

"I even had Republicans tell me they thought everybody should have been allowed to vote for sheriff" in Kay County, DeWitt said.

Only Democrats filed for sheriff in Mayes, Kiowa, LeFlore, Stephens, Custer, Carter, Delaware and Cotton counties, and Republicans alone elected the court clerk and the county clerk in Washington County.

Democrats elected the sheriff and the county clerk in Logan County, while Republicans elected the sheriff, county clerk and court clerk in Canadian County.

State legislative races in Midwest City, Miami and Tahlequah were also concluded during the primary process this year.

According to records maintained by the state Election Board, the number of registered Independent voters in Oklahoma has more than tripled in the past decade, from 58,759 in January 1994 to 195,334 in January 2004. During that same period, Democratic Party registration declined 22 percent to 1,022,442 and Republican Party registration climbed 9.5 percent to 720,121. Oklahoma also has 455 Libertarians and 25 Reform Party members.

Ferguson, a former House GOP Leader, introduced legislation in 1999 and again in 2001 to amend Oklahoma's closed-primary law, but his proposals died in the House Rules Committee.

Under the provisions of those measures, if only two candidates filed for an elective public office and both candidates were from the same political party, the names of both candidates would appear on the general election ballot, allowing all registered voters to participate and not just the members of one particular party.

If one political party had more than two nominees for an elective post, "and no other political party has a nominee for such office," the two highest vote-getters at the primary election would have advanced to the general election "regardless of whether any nominee received a majority of all votes cast for the office" if Ferguson's proposal had been adopted.

Ferguson said he would not tamper with the closed primary provision whenever candidates from two or more parties file for any office.

"We don't allow cross-over voting in primaries, to prevent the voters of one political party from helping to nominate a weak opponent in the primary to face their party's candidate in the general election," he said.

He said another alternative would be to elect county officers on nonpartisan ballots, the way judges are chosen.

"There has to be a better way to choose our public servants than the way it's done now," Ferguson said. "Instead of discouraging voters, we should be doing more to encourage participation in the political process."

An open primary is somewhat redundant. Why have a general election or even parties if you are going to allow any registered voter to vote for any candidate they want in a primary? The closed system is for a reason.

Leonard Sullivan won for two reasons. One. Strong candidate. Two. No demorcatic opponent. The democrats are calling foul when it is their fault Sullivan had no oposing party candidate. The democratic commitee should have found an opponent for him if they were worried about the office.

There are many times someone runs unopposed in the general, but draws an opponent in the primary.

The republican party has a strong chance of capturing both branches of the state legislature this year. I thin the leadership is scared.

Personally, I do not like open primaries. They serve no purpose. Closed allows the parties to choose their OWN candiates.

GET OVER IT!

Amen! I couldn't agree more!

We have open primaries in Missouri. They stink. The Oklahoma model, with registration by Party, is much better.
The people whining about it are invariably those too lazy to get off their duffs and participate in their own Party. Yeah, it takes a little effort, yeah you need to read the paper and be informed. People who are too lazy to do anything about their government, who couldn't name their state representative for a thousand bucks, who haven't read a newspaper since they ran "Little Orphan Annie" who say "I don't care about that politics crap" probably deserve a dictator. Much less work that way.

I'm registered Republican. Had I been able to vote as a Democrat in the last election, I would have definitely used my vote to vote for Orza.

I'd love to have an open primary system. Choice is good.

Jusst curious, do you like Orza, or would you have voted for Orza just to get Henry out of the race?
Regardless of whether Orza or Henry were running against Largent, the Democrat probably still would've won. Gary Richardson pretty much won that race for the Democrats. He launched all sorts of attacks against Largent, and Largent never defended himself.

You making the choices for your party is good. Choice in the general election is good.
"Choice" for choice's sake isn't. You choosing what I eat for breakfast isn't good. Me choosing what car you drive isn't good.
And Republicans choosing the Democratic Party's candidate is not good.
You had plenty of choices within the Republican primary, and nobody's questioning or threatening that. But you don't get to choose, nor should you get to choose, OUR candidate.

Had I thought he had a chance, I would have switched parties prior to the primary. I'm into voting for whoever is best for Oklahoma. Here's a refresher from your high school civics class:

In primaries, the people that do most of your voting and pay attention come from the extreme sides of the aisle, eg. Tom Coburn. Closed primaries tend to elect highly partisan candidates (like John Kerry) because the "base" of the party votes, and the candidate usually reflects your base. Come general election time, these typically extreme politicians race towards the middle to try to lock up the middle vote. Not only is it disingenuous on their part, it's bad for state voters to not know what they're going to get. Many of the voters that are smart enough to see this become disappointed in the system and the candidates that it puts forth. I thought a choice between Henry and Largent was a pretty crappy choice in our last gubenatorial election just as I think a choice between Coburn and Carson is a bad choice.

One thing that happens in Oklahoma because of this system is we have candidates who are "the annointed one". The Republican party has been famous for this -- see Steve Largent. These guys get into office and generally waste 4 to 8 years of our time. The guys that are proposing real change usually don't connect with the base as well as they would the middle-of-the-road guys.

Had Bob Anthony been running against Carson, I doubt that Carson would have much of a shot. Anthony's service in the public sector has not only lacked any scandals, he's very famous for exposing corruption in the system. Something we absolutely could have used in Washington.

I digress.

I've found that the Oklahoma voters have been fo0rced to choose between two candidates who always misrepresent themselves. Coburn trying to appear as a moderate is just as fake as Carson doing the same. This is the cycle that we're all going to be forced to relive over and over again though until we allow the people to choose whichever candidate they think is best.

And yes, I'd have voted for Orza. He's got exactly the kind of leadership this state needs. He's a successful academic AND businessman. He's also not afraid to speak his mind. My father was 1st assistant attorney general during the days when the attorney general's office took down the OIA. Orza was an investagative reporter that was very helpful in that story. He's really a man of unimpeachable ethics who I think really wants what is best for the state.

I'm not overly disappointed with Henry. The guy is kind of a wimp, but he's passed some long needed educational reform. Unfortunately, he's not tackling any of the contraversial issues that must be tackled for this state's education system (or any other system) to really succeed.

Yeah, I'd have greatly prefered Orza too, although I have a close friend who worked for the guy in the early days of Garfields who wasn't particularly fond of him.

As a businessman, he wasn't there to be nice to his employees. He was there to make money -- exploit his employees to make his businesses profitable. From what I understand, he pays fairly though which is the ethical responsibility of a businessman that I'm most concerned with.

And I guarantee you, had Republicans been able to cross their votes over in the primary, Orza would have probably won handily.

In theory, yes. However, a business person has the moral obligation to pay a fair wage, give fair benefits, and treat each employee as a member of his or her own family.

My dad started his company with $100 and this principal. That same company has only fired one person, and only due to a fereral crime commited while on the job, and has yet to have anyone resign. Many have retired, some on the order of God, however, NOT ONE has resigned... There are aporximatly 2,000 employees nationwide.

When you treat an employee with the respect YOU demand from them, they will do almost anything you "ASK"(important word, ask). They will be loyal. And when you are history, they will have been honored to be working WITH you.

Personally, I do not work "FOR" people. I work "WITH" them.

If Orza treats people the way it sounds like in your post, then he is not worthy of my services.

I've actually heard exactly the opposite about Orza. I've heard he treats his employees well, and the wages at Garfields are comparable with other restaurants.
But I also want to make it clear that I agree with what mranderson said, even though I don't think it applies to Orza here.

I agree that Orza would've been a great choice. I actually voted for Orza in the primary. I voted for him for the same reasons that you guys list above.
I liked Orza because he didn't seem to be a Democrat or Republican...he was just Vince Orza. We need more of those type of people in office. We need to put partisan politics aside in this country and start electing Americans instead of Democrats and Republicans.

You know, I favored Ross Perot many years ago for the same reasons I favored Orza. People made fun of Perot for all of his charts and graphs, but the guy really new what he was talking about. He had it all together, and was willing to fight for the American and not the Republican or Democrat. He was also a selfmade billionaire. He did it all honestly. Anyone who can run that successful of a business, I figured could handle the job of running this country.
He also opposed NAFTA, saying it would hurt our economy by shipping jobs to Mexico. He was right on the money.

I'm tired of just having candidates (like Bush and Kerry) that only vote with their party and not for all Americans. These people in office need to realize that they're representing all of America, not just their party.

If Orza runs again, I'll vote for him. I think he definitely has it all together.

As Midtowner said though, one of the problems was that he just couldn't entertain his base because he didn't go far enough to the left. But personally, that's what I liked about him.

Anyways, I can see pros and cons to an open primary system. As Midtowner suggests, it does allow you to vote for the best candidate instead of a certain party. But I can see it from the other side as well. What business do Republicans have in selecting the Democrat, and vice versa. I'm mixed on this issue.

I think you're confused over the definition of the word "exploit" I did not mean it with the negative connotation that you seem to be assigning to it. Anytime you use someone to generate money, you are exploiting them. If you burn a log for warmth, you are exploiting that log for the purpose of creating warmth.

Honestly, I could care less how a politician treats his subordinates as long as he gets the job done the right way for the state. Fortunately, I think Orza is a fine person. The person I knew who worked in his corporate office loved working for the man and actually freely volunteered for his campaign. I wanted to volunteer for his campaign, but unfortunately, I was working as a reporter on the UCO news station and the professor in charge reminded me that it was unethical -- although I did make sure to give slightly erm.. biased reporting You'd have never known there were other candidates on the Democratic ticket had you watched our show

I think I did mention them in my tag actually.