Reforming our primary system?
Last night, I attended a dinner in New York City hosted by the Hoover Institution. At the dinner, two Hoover scholars, David Brady and Douglas Rivers, delivered a presentation on the state of the electorate, focusing particularly on the all-important independent voters.
At some point during the Q&A, Brady spoke at length about the dilemma that primaries present for political parties. This is a familiar topic which we here at Ricochet have discussed: during a primary, where only registered members of the party vote, the party candidates take a hard turn to the right--if Republican--or to the left--if Democrat. Then, in the general election, the emerging candidate, who is likely to be pretty conservative or pretty liberal, suddenly has to appeal to a more general audience. He has to appeal to independent voters. To Brady, this primary system betrayed the GOP in Delaware when it nominated Christine O'Donnell for the Senate seat. O'Donnell, Brady thinks, has no chance of winning.
Brady presented a solution to the primary problem--he said if he could change one thing about the electoral system, this would be it: have open primaries, as California and several other states do. In an open primary, anyone can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. Most states have closed primaries. Here's California's Secretary of State on the difference between open versus closed primaries.
Closed Primary System
A "closed" primary system governed California's primary elections until 1996. In a closed primary, only persons who are registered members of a political party may vote the ballot of that political party.Open Primary System
The provisions of the "closed" primary system were amended by the adoption of Proposition 198, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 26, 1996, Primary Election. Proposition 198 changed the closed primary system to what is known as a "blanket" or "open" primary, in which all registered voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or allegiance.
So with an open primary, the argument goes, since everyone--not just party members--are voting, then a more moderate candidate will win the party nomination and ultimately have a better chance at winning the general election. Would an open primary have served the GOP better in Delaware than a closed one?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Bad idea. Don't you remember "Operation Chaos?"
Jun '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
I think open primaries, with real opportunities for crossover mischief, are not the answer. The risks outweigh the benefits. The answer is to make the whole party process more welcoming, and simpler. You have to encourage as many people as possible to show up, but you also have to reward the ones that actually do show up. It's a balance.
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Limbaugh's motives aside, the ultimate effect of operation chaos was to tip the scales against the less moderate candidate (Obama) in favor of the more moderate candidate (Clinton), which in theory is a good thing, right?
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 6:49amJun '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
But, as often as not, the effort is not to support some other strong candidate. It's to support someone like Dennis Kucinich, hoping that they become the only alternative to your own party's candidate in the general.
Re: Reforming our primary system?
But what about the independents? I think there are some real benefits--which could outweigh the risks--of involving independents in the primary process.
Also, I know there is a risk of cross over voting, but everyone only has one vote, and I wonder if enough people will effectively give up their one vote by crossing over, rather than actually voting for their preferred candidate.
Re: Reforming our primary system?
etoiledunord
But, as often as not, the effort is not to support some other strong candidate. It's to support someone like Dennis Kucinich, hoping that they become the only alternative to your own party's candidate in the general. · Sep 17 at 6:55am
But say operation chaos caused Clinton to win the primary and then, because it was a Democrat year, the general. Partisan politics aside, wouldn't that have been a better outcome than Obama winning?
Jun '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Emily Esfahani Smith
etoiledunord
But, as often as not, the effort is not to support some other strong candidate. It's to support someone like Dennis Kucinich, hoping that they become the only alternative to your own party's candidate in the general. · Sep 17 at 6:55am
But say operation chaos caused Clinton to win the primary and then, because it was a Democrat year, the general. Partisan politics aside, wouldn't that have been a better outcome than Obama winning? · Sep 17 at 6:58am
Can't argue with that.
Sep '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Rush's Operation Chaos was motivated by Democrats voting for McCain, and playing other games, in open primaries.
No, I don't think it is a good idea all things considered. It is natural for a pol to appeal to his party (base), then he must live with his words in the general. What is wrong with that?
Funny how the talk turns to changing the primary system when the establishment guy loses.
Re: Reforming our primary system?
California has open primaries, but only as of this year. So we don't know what effect they'll have yet. I wrote a post back in May asking readers what they thought about open primaries and whether they were a step in the right direction. I received some pretty compelling arguments for why they're a bad idea.
Aug '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
It is entirely possible that the GOP was served quite well in Delaware on Tuesday, whether many in the party establishment likes it or not. Time will tell.
Jul '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Hey, I have an idea.
Lets change the rule in court too.
Lets let either of the two attorneys argue either prosicution or defense any time they want. Let's not have two committed attorneys, fully committed to their point of view, trying to convince the jury of either a) the defendant is guilty or b) the defendant is Not guilty.
That way the friction in the courtroom could be moderated, less conflict is a good thing is it not?
Gosh, we could turn criminal law into a round table discussion eventually.
Luke Warm isn't the answer.
The Primary process wasn't broken just because some sore loosers didn't like the outcome, so don't fix it.
May '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
I suspect that closed primary results have less to do with closed rules than that voters with bolder convictions are likely to be more involved in politics and participate in every political opportunity. Particularly in modern elections, I doubt many Independents feel as strongly about enacting their views as the voters who believe government is headed toward tyranny and ruin.
Open or closed, primary results will not reflect the middle.
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Franco:
Funny how the talk turns to changing the primary system when the establishment guy loses. · Sep 17 at 7:26
I don't think Brady was reacting to the "establishment" loss. I think he was more concerned with how to incorporate independent voters into the primary system--which wouldn't necessarily be bad for the GOP.
Aug '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
This seems to me like more tinkering around the edges, tuning the car instead of overhauling the engine - which is what we really need.
California has two things I've seen promoted here as part of a solution: open primaries and term limits. Neither have stemmed the tide of 'progressive' statism, corruption, and civic bankruptcy.
One salutary effect of a collapsing economy will be the raising of public interest. Voter apathy in this country and low voter turnout is killing us. People need to learn that they're responsible members of a republic, and misery of a permanent nature is lurking around the corner if they don't get off their duff!
The Tea Party is our last, best hope to instill the passion for action in America.
Aug '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
But not necessarily good, either.
Independents in states with closed primary systems make their own choice about whether or how to be included. Me? I've remained a registered Democrat, even though I haven't voted D (in a national election) since I was *much* younger. I've found that typically I dislike a particular Democrat more that I like a particular Republican, so it generally suits me fine at primary time.
Emily Esfahani Smith
I think he was more concerned with how to incorporate independent voters into the primary system--which wouldn't necessarily be bad for the GOP. · Sep 17 at 7:44am
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Bill Waldron: Independents in states with closed primary systems make their own choice about whether or how to be included. Me? I've remained a registered Democrat, even though I haven't voted D (in a national election) since I was *much* younger. I've found that typically I dislike a particular Democrat more that I like a particular Republican, so it generally suits me fine at primary time.
Emily Esfahani Smith
I think he was more concerned with how to incorporate independent voters into the primary system--which wouldn't necessarily be bad for the GOP. · Sep 17 at 7:44am
Sep 17 at 7:59am
But Bill, wouldn't you still be able to exercise that same choice with an open primary system?
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Aaron Miller: I suspect that closed primary results have less to do with closed rules than that voters with bolder convictions are likely to be more involved in politics and participate in every political opportunity. Particularly in modern elections, I doubt many Independents feel as strongly about enacting their views as the voters who believe government is headed toward tyranny and ruin.
Open or closed, primary results will not reflect the middle. · Sep 17 at 7:39am
That's a great point Aaron. I bet it also applies to people who are less discontent and more happy with their circumstances and with political life: they don't feel the need to enact change by voting at the ballot box.
Sep '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Emily Esfahani Smith
Franco:
Funny how the talk turns to changing the primary system when the establishment guy loses. · Sep 17 at 7:26
I don't think Brady was reacting to the "establishment" loss. I think he was more concerned with how to incorporate independent voters into the primary system--which wouldn't necessarily be bad for the GOP. · Sep 17 at 7:44am
OK, but independents are a funny breed. Rob Long posted about them a few days back.and the thread didn't hold much esteem for them. And independents should be, ahem, independent. Voting in a Dem or GOP open primary kinda negates their appelation doesnt it? Chasing after the independent vote as a block is like herding cats.
The thing that really gets me ~ those so-called independents who say they lean right, or are "fiscal conservatives", but then vote for some Marxist because he is pro-choice or for same sex marriage, as though these issues are really going to be decided by some Senator or podunk congressperson, while the Marxist pol has direct effect on Mr.Fiscal Conservative's pocket, voting everyday to raid his earnings on behalf of some noble government need.
Aug '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Fair point, Emily. Yes, I would. I do think, however, that the advantages of closed primaries outweigh the disadvantages -- for reasons expressed by others above and in response to Diane's earlier query.
Emily Esfahani Smith
Bill Waldron: Independents in states with closed primary systems make their own choice about whether or how to be included. Me? I've remained a registered Democrat, even though I haven't voted D (in a national election) since I was *much* younger. I've found that typically I dislike a particular Democrat more that I like a particular Republican, so it generally suits me fine at primary time.
Emily Esfahani Smith
I think he was more concerned with how to incorporate independent voters into the primary system--which wouldn't necessarily be bad for the GOP. · Sep 17 at 7:44am
Sep 17 at 7:59am
But Bill, wouldn't you still be able to exercise that same choice with an open primary system? · Sep 17 at 8:04am
Jul '10
Re: Reforming our primary system?
Until the passage of a recent initiative, California had a system in which you could register as unaffiliated and then vote either Dem or GOP. If you registered Dem or GOP, you had to vote accordingly. If you registered with some other party - Libertarian or Green or whatever, you were limited to voting in that primary.
That still sounds pretty good to me.
Open primaries in a few states helped to give us John McCain.
That's not so good.