Parties are disgustingly outdated in existing in the US anyway. Oklahoma's Democratic Party will allow independents to vote for the next few years because they're desperate to get votes.

Have to agree with Putin on this. The idea that anyone should expect to be given the right to help choose the leader of a group they don't belong to is ridiculous. It's like me complaining that I don't have a vote in the Presidential election. If someone wants to get involved with party politics, join a party and get involved. It ain't rocket science.

If a party wishes to allow people outside the membership to vote in their election, that should be entirely up to them.

I have to agree with both Putin and Oct.

How many votes for Hilary are actually from people who will vote Republican in the final election?

I suspect more Democrats are voting against Trump.

I'm not saying it's morally bankrupt that Independents can't vote in some primaries. But yes, parties are private and can do what they wante, and primaries matter more than the general election in terms of highlighting the issues that matter. Primaries used to not exist and nominations were all decided behind closed doors. The wave of democracy and primaries and letting average Americans have more say in who governs them must include letting voters of their nominations not just be by party loyalists, but by all people not registered to an opposing party.

Some states go so far as to even let Republicans take a Dem ballot and visa versa if they want because Power to the People, why not?

But yes Oct, it is voter disenfranchisement when parties employ rules that keep them in control of their nomination process at the expense of average Americans expressing their voice.

Do any of the parties ban average Americans from joining them?

It's not a matter of banning people from joining, it's a matter of forcing people to join them in order to have a say in the nominating process. I know on some levels it makes sense that a party nomination should be restricted to party members, but when you have a two-party system dominating our political scene like we do, Independent voters being forced to register for a party months before having a say in the nominating process is explicitly trying to dissuade that, and we shouldn't be unless we're trying to hold onto the past where party insiders have more influence than voters over our government makeup.

Someone who is active enough in politics to have joined a party does have more influence than the average voter, and rightly so. You have more influence than the average voter. Anyone who cares enough to take action both receives and deserves more influence, just as anyone who doesn't bother to vote deservedly loses influence.

Independent voters care, if anything they care more than party voters, they care enough that they know they aren't Democrats or Republicans. It's the less informed voters that pick a side based on what their friends do.

This isn't to say that party voters aren't informed, but to say that in America you become politically active and relevant when you pick Dem or Repub is the exact damn problem.

"Someone who is active enough in politics to have joined a party does have more influence than the average voter"
Not the case in the US, where joining a party occurs at the same time as when they sign up to vote. Being "part" of a party means much less here.

If they are informed and live in an area where only party members vote, then they are making an informed choice not to vote in party nominations. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, but it is their choice and there is nothing to stop them making a different choice.

So it's SOL if someone is debating between, say, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders?

This election exposes the problem with picking your party before you pick your candidate.

It really doesn't

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not sure you really understand the nature of the political parties in America at the moment.

I understand it fine. I'm looking at the same evidence and drawing a conclusion that seems obvious to me. I am somewhat baffled by how you come to yours, but that's not entirely unusual. Agreeing to disagree seems the best option

You had to have grown up watching CNN and Fox News to really understand the frustration I have with the entire system and how they sell it to us.

Because choosing a party is a disgusting compromise. There is no party which itself is worth my time or vote. The American system is based on individualism and personality. We'd rather choose a person than a party, and these people aren't necessarily going to be from the same party. I expect to vote split ticket either way, so I inherently am entirely incapable of voting in at least one primary, no matter which party I would choose.

You can join the Democrats and vote for a Republican or independent President, can't you?

I can register independent and vote for a Democrat or Republican president, but no person can contribute to who both their choices for president are.

If I register Democrat and vote Republican for president, then I couldn't choose my candidate then either.

So, just to be clear about this, the reason you're frustrated is that you can't help choose the nominee that you won't be voting for in a presidential election?

If I'm a Democrat and like Trump, the Republican primaries should allow me to voice that opinion. Same if I'm a Republican and want to support Bernie in the Democratic primaries. But it's easier for parties to keep control if the voter bases aren't as fluid and the parties can easily target their voters. It's all a game, after all. A big numbers game. Because fuck people and what they want.

New York, thank you! We are getting a smart, intelligent, experienced, educated, sensible, trustworthy, respectable new Clinton as the new president of the USA! And a woman too!! Greater news could not be wished for. Congratulations to the World! (and the USA)!

Nice troll.

If you're a Democrat and you like Trump, you're not actually a Democrat.