The State Board of Elections was busy yesterday (AP). First, they approved a request by the Virginia Republican Party to require voters in their February 12 presidential primary to sign a loyalty oath, vowing to support the eventual Republican nominee. Yawn. As everyone has noted, there is no way to enforce the oath, so this is an effort in futility. If anything, it will have the effect of reducing voter turnout. Perhaps this is their goal?
Of greater interest to me was the decision in the DPVA complaint regarding the campaign violations by the Davises in the 34th Senate race. The SBE has referred the case to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office in Fairfax County. (Another case, involving the complaint of Ken Cuccinelli against Janet Oleszek, was similarly referred.) Despite the outcome of the race, I think the CA’s office should vigorously investigate the complaint. There is a tendency to let “bygones be bygones” once the race is over, which results in candidates pushing the envelope in succeeding elections. I hope that doesn’t happen here.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I don’t think that open primaries are a good idea, but a loyalty oath? Could they be any lamer?
I think open primaries are more likely to get moderate nominees. I have voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries, and will continue to do so as long as it is legal.
Does it bother anyone other than me that “open primaries” are inherently dishonest?
Or does getting your desired result (“moderate” candidates that do not really represent their party philosophy) mean more than freedom of association?
It sounds to me like Mouse is accomplishing both goals, Donald. She’s pushing for a more-moderate candidate in a primary, and in doing so she’s exercising her freedom to associate with whatever party she chooses. She’s embracing the idea that she is more than just her partisan label while participating in our democracy, which might be the perfect expression of individual freedom. The freedom you’re talking about is the freedom to disassociate on behalf of the party with those whom they might disagree on a couple of ideological points. So fundamentally, the question you’re asking is:
“Why does the freedom of the individual outweigh the freedom of the group?”
To which I reply: holy cow, and you ran as a *libertarian?!*
Freedom of association is an individual freedom, not a collective license.
Think of it this way, we are holding our Tidewater Libertarian Party elections for our officers this week. If we could not limit those voting to Libertarians, the Republicans could eliminate us as a threat by simply sending enough of their larger membership to elect non-Libertarians to all of our leadership positions and then go home till next year.
I would lose my right to associate with a political party which holds views in general agreement with my own.
In the same way, open primaries deny individuals the right to belong to a party that holds their views if enough people who do not hold those views cross over to dilute that ideology in selecting a candidate.
Open primaries, like “at large” city council seats, are leftovers of an earlier time when they were created to suppress minority voters. The only thing that has changed is which minorities are being suppressed.
I have no problem with open primaries. To date, I’ve not seen anything that convinces me that large numbers of people from the “other” party participate in the primaries enough to sway the vote. If there is a study out there, I’d like to see it.
I think there is a difference between local party affiliation and the broader selection of party nominees. Selection of party leadership – those who will represent the party – is not the same as the selection of a nominee, who potentially will represent us all.
There’s a profound difference between the election of committee officers and the election of legislative candidates, Donald, primarily in that the relevant constitution governing the electoral process for our lawmakers defines the constituency for us. It also establishes and defines a lawmaker’s authority to create, amend or abolish laws which govern criminal and civil conduct within our society. The end result is an enshrined relationship between a voter (in this case Mrs Mouse) and her elected representative. He has a responsibility to represent or govern in a manner that promotes the general welfare of his constituents (all of them, not just the ones who agree with him). She gets to vote.
By contrast, your voluntary organization exists without a defined social contract, which means every individual has more say in the buy-in. You and the rest of the libertarians in your club don’t have any obligation to me, so you’re free to think I’m irrelevant. I, likewise, am free to think you all are irrelevant and not self-identify with your group.
added: I see that in the course of my dissertation, Vivian managed to say the same thing much more succinctly than I did. That’s why she’s the blogger, folks. 🙂
Doc, if the Republican Party or the Democratic Party does not like the open primary, they can hold a caucus.
anon 🙂 – you gotta learn to type faster 🙂
AEM – exactly!
BTW – am I the only one who cares whether there is accountability related to campaign finance?
Vivian – the campaign finance thing obviously hits closer to home for you than it does for the rest of us, but I for one definitely agree that the relevant Commonwealth Attorneys should continue to investigate any and all violations of the laws pertaining to political communications, campaign finance and elections. I’m more than a little sick of the fact that some people will actually go out of their way to break the rules in the last ten days of an election simply because they know the process won’t be fast enough to catch them before the votes are counted.
Not only that, anon, but even afterwards, they end up not getting sufficiently penalized. I’m convinced that is why the shenanigans get worse every year.
Which is why this tradition of “letting bygones be bygones” is an awful one. You know where we’ll really suffer for that tradition? 2009.