From my mailbox, Joe Kirby, Spokesman for the Amendment H open primaries measure has a message for Republicans on why they should support Amendment H.
For your consideration:
The Republican Party in South Dakota needs a new election system. The party is fractured, with fringe elements dominating the state conventions and primaries. Mainstream Republicans (aka RINOs) are increasingly marginalized, and the party’s elected officials no longer consistently represent traditional South Dakota conservative values. This shift threatens the state’s historically stable, business-friendly environment.
Despite these challenges, party bosses remain defensive, refusing to acknowledge the issues. Their loyalty seems more aligned with their view of party interests than with the well-being of the state and its voters.
Open primaries would broaden the party’s base and allow South Dakota’s traditional conservative values to dominate our politics once again. Vote YES on H!
Joe Kirby
Amendment H has picked up a few advocates who are active Republican elected officials, including State Senator Michael Rohl.
You can find out more about Amendment H here.
But it doesn’t guarantee them on the general election…
“Open Primaries gives South Dakota’s 150,000 independent voters the right to vote in primaries.”
If I was a dem or an independent I would rather be on the general election ballot than a primary ballot.
As a SD citizen I would rather have the two most popular candidates in the general elections.
If all this did was let independents vote in gop primaries it wouldn’t be so bad. This allows dems to vote in gop primaries. What’s the point of parties then also what is the point of a primary let’s just have a general election.
Amendment H = No libertarians, No independents, no small parties, likely no dems.
False – it doesn’t let Dems vote in the Republican primary – it completely gets rid of party primaries that are funded by the state and creates a South Dakota Primary.
Citizens deserve to have real choices during elections. Who is the last libertarian to win an election?
I always find it interesting when the opponents talk they say the don’t want Democrats or Republicans picking their candidates – but when you replace Democrat or Republican with “South Dakotans” you realize how wrong your stated point is. South Dakotans deserve to elect South Dakota’s leaders.
So why even have a primary? Why not just have the top vote getter win in november?
For the exact reason stated below – you don’t want a party to split and a less popular person win. This ensures the most popular person wins.
It’s a dumb concept. It reeks of desperation. Rich people trying to manipulate elections.
We should be inclusive as parties. It takes everyone to win.
Amendment H is all about getting rid of Kristi Noem, Donald Trump etc. I think it backfires but we will see.
Please explain. Legitimately curious on how it’s meant to get rid of Noem, Trump, ect.?
It also might split one party’s votes if there are more than one candidate of one political persuasion vs one of another. Look at Alaska. Two Republicans ran against each other, beat each other up, and the lone democrat won, even though Republicans had more total votes.
Vote no!
Please reread your statement. That’s not possible with a top 2 primary. If there are 2 republicans and a Democrat in the primary, the republicans split and the Dem wins the primary, but then one of the republicans still advances to the fall race against the Democrat.
That was in a special election to replace a politician who had died, I grant you that. But the idea holds true. In a jungle primary, which is what this would be, dems could cross over to sink a GOP candidate and end up with two dem candidates, or vice versa. If independents want to vote for a certain candidate in a certain election, just register with that party, vote, and switch back after the primary. No one is prevented from voting in a primary now.
But you are. Because I may support most republicans but some blue dog democrats or independents in local county races during the same election. That doesn’t allow the best candidates to get my support. I shouldn’t have to join a party to vote for who I think is best to represent my family when neither party is 100% correct.
If the 24% of Dems try to sink a Republican, then the Dem won’t have any votes to advance their candidate. People own their own votes and get to decide how to cast them.
Dems couldn’t field 60% of the field for even one candidate – stop acting like letting South Dakotans decide their leaders is radical – it’s not. It’s done all over the country.
They can’t decide their leaders because voters aren’t going to show up in June. They show up in November and most want to mail in a ballot now.
It shouldn’t be necessary to jump through those hoops to exercise a fundamental right. Removing those barriers is simple and returns sanity to a process that has strayed from it.
Good. Then it will force Republicans to campaign on the actual issues that are important to Republicans and not just the fringe. Maybe we need a few Democrats to win more races to stop the nonsense coming from the fringe far right.
That’s literally already happening….
99.9% of Republican primaries don’t have a general. The office holder is being chosen in the primary. Why not give everyone a say at that point. And the party is already splitting – alrwsy dirty politics being played within the party. Were you awake in June?
Not to mention, traditionally conservative organizations being infiltrated and PACs choosing sides, maliciously attacking Republican candidates (we’re looking at you Right to Life…). Might as well open the decision making to all of South Dakota at this point.
All tax payers pay for the primary elections, but not all tax payers can vote in them. Seems backwards, but just how the crazy far right likes it; they generally insist someone else funds their chaos.
Why would you oppose anything that gives more power to the people? Sounding pretty liberal to me.
Keep it on topic, please. John Dale, that’s in reference to your random post.
I cant tell if he is getting worse. His rants seem increasingly unhinged at times, but he has moments of lucidity.
It wasn’t a rant, as much as “come to my website for this completely unrelated topic.”
No proxy servers, please. Because I really don’t think you’re commenting from Punjab in Pakistan.
H will serve as chemo to the toxic cancer that is the far-right.
Let’s hope the cancer doesn’t kill the host first…
Amen!
That must by why the lunatics QAnon faction are so against H. Getting elected would be far more difficult for them. It’s why Aberdeen’s Alex Jones is all against it too.
It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this. This may pass given the fact the lunatic far right knocked off a bunch of good legislators in June. I also find it interesting that the Dems oppose this given the fact they elect hardly anyone in the state — would seem to be that they would embrace a change. But the party label means more to them than an opportunity to see better governance.
I can see why the R party is against. They have dominated for a long time. The problem, as we have seen now for a few years is that the far right have taken over the convention and have done a better job of recruiting their candidates in primaries and then showing up to vote. In an election of small turnouts or small conventions the whacky will often win — they are more motivated to show up for a variety of reasons. It may be time for this, but I would prefer that we at least have primaries for AG and SOS — the convention does not have a great track record lately of reliably choosing the best candidate and ultimate office holder.
Our objective should be to elect the best person not to elect the best democrat, Republican , or lib.
State before party. Nation before party.
Then why even have parties and platforms?
Where is it written that any party has to nominate their candidates in a primary?
What will all the non-affiliated voters think when they go to vote in June and the only names on the ballots are the precinct committee men and women?
I doubt they show up and vote in June.
“Gee wiz, better vote for the committee person that doesn’t eat glue then!”
Scrapping the primaries altogether would make more sense. Let everyone run in November and if no one gets 50 per cent plus 1, the top two contenders move on to a runoff. Louisiana does this and it seems to work well for them. It also follows that if everyone is allowed to vote in a primary, constitutional officer candidates should be chosen in the primary and not at the convention. Otherwise, the parties are still nominating certain of the candidates in a closed convention.
And once the general ballot in November features nothing but Republicans, voter turn out will drop and guess who will get out the vote?
The crazies, that’s who.
Please note that a couple of weeks ago, Dan Ahlers, SD Democrat Execuative Director, came out in an editorial on the Dakota Scout pointing out the errors of Amendment H. Split in the Democrat Party also? One wonders…
This doesn’t eliminate parties, they can still endorse in a primary election, they would just have to do it on their own dime. Why should the tax payers be required to pay for a partisan elections that disenfranchise such a large part of the electorate?
Amendment H is such a bad idea.
Look at California where they have a similar law. Republicans are all but shut out of all state offices. It doesn’t promote conversation, and it will ensure one party rule, perhaps even more so. I would rather see multiple parties be on the ballot rather than just one.
I do not like this amendment.