Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Get the States Out of the Primary Business
The only Congressional offices mentioned in the Constitution are the Speaker of the House, The President of the Senate (aka, the Vice-President) and the President Pro Tem. What is not mentioned is the offices that now dominate those institutions: The Majority Leaders, whose offices were established closer to the turn of the 20th Century than to the Constitutional Convention. (The House elected its first in 1899, the Senate in 1913.) In short, while political parties were probably unavoidable, they are also extra-constitutional.
In light of the arguments surrounding Donald Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot we need to ask ourselves why state officials and courts feel they have the power and the right to decide such matters for the primaries. (The general election is a whole other can of worms.) The primaries are not an election, the primaries are a selection – and a selection for private organizations at that.
The reason the states feel they have that right is because they pay for them. State legislatures set the dates and dole out millions to run them. How much? Well, it’s hard to pin down. Estimates vary from a half a billion dollars on up. A single congressional district election in Illinois can cost $2.58M. (ABCNews estimate from 2012 so add 35% for inflation.)
Iowa doesn’t have that problem in the presidential process because they caucus – and when they gather next month the parties will be picking up the bill. And it’s way past time that they did that with the primaries, too. If you’re third party or independent, why should you as a taxpayer, be asked to underwrite a process that excludes you?
So, let’s get back to that “other can of worms” previously mentioned. In a way, perhaps the Democrats have screwed up tactically here. It might have worked out better for them had they simply kept their powder dry and let the primaries play out and then declare Trump ineligible for the general election. Unless, of course, you’re like me and believe that this whole charade is intended to boost Trump as the nominee and then it’s perfectly logical.
Published in General
Well, California has already done that, mostly, with their “Jungle Primaries”; a runoff system where the top two primary winners go to the general election, regardless of party.
What ends up happening in California is that there are no Republicans to vote for in the general.
Or more specifically, Senator Kamala Harris.
But not the presidential race. They still conduct a “modified-closed presidential primary.”
For about a hundred reasons, I agree with EJ Hill in this post completely.
Registering all those dead people ain’t cheap.
And why can’t a county official feel they have that power? There are 3244 counties. It takes just one populous county to flip a swing state.
I agree, EJ. States should not be paying for or administering these elections. Far better that parties candidates are chosen by party members elected as delegates to go to that party’s Congressional District and State Conventions.
I would go as far as eliminating primaries altogether. Go back to choosing the candidates at the conventions. The current primary system is ridiculous and makes no sense. At the very least they should all have the same rules in every state on how they run their primary. The fact that some states have open primaries is just rife for corruption.
It’s just preposterous to be at the polling place and be asked, “Which ballot do you want, Republican or Democratic?” You can have zero affiliation with a party and vote on who their nominee should be?
I’m in favor of a crazy patchwork of state and local regulation. Also state and local election law.
I agree. Parties should just pick.
That’s how it is done in Indiana. Lots of folks claim to be a “registered Democrat” or a ” registered Republican” but actually are neither.
I just read the relevant section of the 14th amendment:
Note that there is no prohibition on anyone running for office just because they’ve engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The prohibition is on holding office, not running for office.
Not that any of this is relevant in the case of President Trump.
Is this different from a “modified, limited hangout?” Asking for a friend.
So in an alternate universe, President Trump could be re-elected but barred from actually taking office so his VP-Elect would assume office?
Good question. We’d be in new territory, so I imagine that’s one way it could play out. Or two-thirds of each house could say it’s OK in Trump’s case for him to serve.
Well, in Georgia even the General Election doesn’t seem to be paid for by taxpayers, but by Zuckerberg, who, for all intents and purposes bought the election result in Georgia in 2020.
It’s like with dead people. There is no law saying you can’t run for office just because you’ll be dead on inauguration day or the opening day of Congress. But I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to hold the office if you’re dead.
A modified closed primary means that if you are independent you can vote in either primary (but only one) and still not change your registration status.
State payment for primaries benefits party organizations because taxpayers fund the selection of nominees. This frees up party fundraising for other costs.
A corollary to state payment for primaries is that there has to be some qualification to get on the ballot, so this benefits the existing large parties, i.e. the Democrats and the Republicans. It keeps the Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitutionalists, etc. in a situation where they are perpetually collecting signatures to get on the ballot for the next election. If there were no qualifications to get on the ballot, I could, for example, declare myself the presidential nominee of the Party of Patrick Henry and force the state to include me on the ballot. The existing parties use this to keep other parties out – this is one reason our two-party system has been so stable since the 1860s.
An open primary is intended to get independents to support a party’s nominee. In this way, it is good preparation for the general election because you already have a segment of independent voters who have supported the nominee in the primary. But it also favors more moderate candidates or candidates with some crossover appeal because any candidate can appeal to centrist moderates for primary votes, which is also good preparation for the general. Or course, there is also the risk of mischievous or strategic voting where you vote for the candidate of the other party whom you think is the weakest.
Our country is unusual with the way we have direct goverment involvement on how our major parties pick thier candidates. Technically, political parties are not a part of the government. They are private organizations.
Comparing other countries has it’s perils, because in doing so, you’re generally comparing parliamentary systems of government with ours.
Canada, Australia, and the UK have only recently held national party elections for their head of the party. Before then, the party head was generally picked by their parliamentary caucus.
But when I followed how the UK’s Conservative Party allowed for its members to pick a new party leader, and therefore the Prime Minister since they were the majority party in the House of Commons, I noted that first, they ran that election, not the government, and that to have a vote, the person had to be a party member in good standing, which included the payment of party dues.
You also have to apply to become a party member. So at the very least, your application has some sort of cursory look. I don’t know all the rules, but party membership also probably means you have to show up for local party meetings, and take part in the selection of the local candidate for Parliament at election time.
So when it comes to these elections, the system is very closed.
In the United States, a party does have the option of picking their candidates through a caucus, and after the Colorado decision to take Trump off the primary ballot, the Colorado GOP has threatened to do just that.
Maybe, but since McCain – Feingold, parties are extemely limited on how much they can spend on actual campaigns. Most of the spending is done through individual fundraising by the actual candidate, or by political action committees (PAC’s).
When it comes to supporting their candidates, and therefore having some sort of ability to pressure them to toe the party line, they’ve been left out in the cold.
So what exactly is the party spending this saved money on exactly?
Toby Young tried to apply for membership in the Labour Party some time back simply to vote against Jeremy Corbyn and was rejected. I believe that the Tories demand that you’ve been a member in good standing for at least 6 months before you can participate in a party conference.
You would never get a John McCain or a Krysten Sinema in England. The parties would simply “withdraw the whip,” i.e. announce that they would no longer support you in Parliamentary elections.
Because they are a small nation, they take local elections very seriously in the UK. Council elections are just as important as elections for the Commons.
Never say never. Boris Johnson is a counter-example.
But he’s not. Don’t conflate opposing your voters with opposing your party. That is two totally separate things.
That’s a lesson that Republican voters have yet to learn with the GOPe.
Media and fundraising consultants.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/how-republicans-and-democrats-spent-their-money-during-2022-midterm-elections/
State parties still largely control the primary rules through legislation passed by their leaders in state legislatures, but they have sloughed off the funding of the primaries to the taxpayers.
For example, in 2020 Kansas switched from a caucus to a primary. Democratic leaders gave two reasons for supporting the change. First, it would encourage more voter participation. Democrats are a minority in red Kansas, so they are trying to attract independents to vote Democrat. Second, they said it would produce more moderate candidates. Again, because Kansas is red, Democrats have a problem if a caucus attended by true believers picks a wacky liberal.
Kansas Republicans had a little different calculation. Their leadership is bunch of RINOs, and they want to avoid another governor like Sam Brownback. He was a true conservative, and they were only able to sabotage some of his reforms. It would simplify their lives a lot if they can draw more independents to a primary and avoid another real conservative. That way they can avoid conservative candidates in the populous Topeka/Kansas City area and continue to collaborate with Democrats to frustrate the will of the voters.
So I would argue that the primary rules reflect the structure of political competition in the state and are based on the desires of the party leadership.