In an op-ed for The New York Times, former Oregon secretary of state Phil Keisling says we should scrap the party primary system and replace it with a “fully open/top two” primary. The goal: reducing partisanship.
All candidates would run in a first round, “qualifying” election, with the top two finalists earning the chance to compete head-to-head in November. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, even “None of the Above’s” could all run in the first round. Voters would certainly know candidates’ party affiliations, but no political party would automatically be entitled to a spot on the November ballot.
[…]
Gone would be the ideological purity tests of primaries, which more and more punish the Republican concerned with global warming or the Democrat wrestling with eye-popping budget deficits. Candidates wouldn’t have to practice the dark arts of the “message zigzag,” securing the base then feinting to the center. A system without partisan primaries would reward candidates who work, from Day 1, to appeal openly and forthrightly to the broadest group of voters.
On the surface, this sounds like a pretty good idea – especially the part about appealing to the broadest group of voters. I’ve watched Scott Rigell, one of the Republican candidates in the 2nd Congressional District, move far right as he attempts to capture the votes of the primary voters. Glenn Nye, the current 2nd CD representative, faces no primary opposition and has used this opportunity to try to appeal to everyone.
On the other hand, I don’t know that having a runoff would really accomplish much. Keisling concedes that the two winners are likely to be a Democrat and a Republican. That being the case, the candidates would still need to appeal to the base of each party in an attempt to turn them out to vote in the primary. Given that we don’t register by party in Virginia, we always have the opportunity for independents to vote in primaries, anyway.
So my question is: should we scrap party primaries?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I think there is a lot to be said for doing this. Too often the options are limited to who the party decides is ‘pure’ enough be it through endorsement and/or money.
In the City I work the members of council and the Mayor are non-partisan positions. Sure, each one who runs is a part of the Republican or Democratic party, but the last time the Mayor ran, she ran against, among others, a 20 year old ‘independent’. The top two vote getters in May are on the ballot in November.
Had there been a political party primary, that person would have never been on a ballot. The 20-yo did not win, but at least the voters decided that, not an executive committee of a party.
Am I in favor of eliminating primaries? I am not totally aware of both the pros and cons, but at first blush, I am leaning towards yes. The ones who would hate it, I would think, would be party elitists.
As for the end result still being a Republican and a Democrat running, that is ok… But at least then the voters would know it was set to be like that at the polls, not some meeting. Who knows, maybe it would be two Democrats or Republicans… Imagine that race!
Just my two cents
The part I worry about is the top-two runoff. If there are lots of candidates, it’s possible that the top two candidates won’t have broad support, maybe getting 15 or 20 percent each. And they could end up being two Democrats or two Republicans. The majority of the electorate could end up faced with a runoff featuring two candidates they can’t stand.
It might work better with something like instant-runoff voting, where voters’ opinions of all the candidates could be taken into account, but I fear that IRV is too confusing for much of the electorate (though they do manage to use it in some places) and not without its own flaws.
Here are two things I think would help a great deal more than having a run-off primary: ranked-choice voting–in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, and the mail-in ballot. And if I had to choose just one, I’d go with the mail-in ballot. That will create more participation in the political process than anything else.
I would prefer run-off elections. If a candidate does not get 50% of the vote, the top two have a run-off election. (Ranked-choice is designed to do the same thing in an “instant run-off” sort of thing.)
People would not be afraid to vote for independents and third-party candidates if they knew that there vote was not just going to help the guy they REALLY don’t want.
Warren, ranked choice is better than the top-two runoff because it takes into account people’s opinions of *all* the candidates, not just the top two, who might be hated by the majority of voters.
Mimi, I have mixed feelings about mail-in. It does seem like there’s more possibility for fraud, bribery, and coercion there, so I won’t be surprised to see a voting scandal related to voting by mail soon. Switching to vote by mail may increase participation, but that needs to be weighed against the fact that it effectively means giving up the secret ballot.
Uh, as a Federal judge once said to a union lawyer whose client wouldn’t let my public employee client resign from union membership, “Have you … ever HEARD of the First Amendment?!?!”
Parties have the First-Amendment right to select their nominees. It is little surprise that those who want to camouflage their activities and goals would want to diminish partisan distinctions since, after all, those who believe in historical determinism are perfectly happy to accept slower socialism over a direct engagement.
James,
I am a union member and proud to be one, and I say I have no problem with the employee not wanting to belong to the union, however he/she should not be entitled to any benefits negotiated through the union contract since union members pay. The employee basically wants a free ride.
As for the process by which we choose candidates it would seem irrelevant if we end up with a Democrat and a Republican which would happen in most cases. It would however allow as indicated for the candidates to not have to follow strict ideals as laid down by parties.
I’ve always liked this system. It does favor those who appeal to the mainstream over narrowly-focused, ideological candidates on either side.
Also, it gives voters an opportunity to cast a vote that counts in districts which are dominated by one party or the other. Virginia voters, I supposed, currently have this power because they can cross over and vote in the other party’s primary. Most don’t. But if I live in the 1dt District and I’m a Democrat or the 3nrd as a Republican. I know the other party is going to win. I should get SOME say over who they put up to be my representative.
James Young- political parties aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.
State governments are and they are given control over election in their state, including how candidates for a general election are chosen. So they have a perfect right to adopt the Oregon System if they choose. It doesn’t violate the First Amendment rights of any person, which are gauranteed. I’d think some one as worried about the non-existant threat of Socialism as you are would understand that the Bill of Rights, except when specifically granting power to the states, confers individual, not collective, rights.
I’m a proud union member as well. Belonging to a union only enhances my First Amendment rights. I’m fairly certain that public employee took that job b/c he or she enjoyed the pay and benefits bargained for and won by the union of employees.
And regarding the mail-in ballot, I’m sure we can devise rules and regs for fair processing, if the will is there. Online voting is becoming more common; I’ve setup procedures for a national membership organization to do its board elections this way and it’s going well. I think the younger generation will demand it–and our democracy may depend on it as well.
Vivian,
I think that government-funded primaries should end. James is generally correct when he suggests that the trend in federal case law is to recognize that a political party’s nominee for federal office is more akin to an officer of the party, whom the party itself may freely choose, than a per-se candidate for public office. (Many states, including Virginia, grant immediate ballot placement to the nominees chosen by the major parties, but that is a discrete operation of law.)
Using that perspective as a foundation, it makes no sense for taxpayers to pay for the parties’ nominee selection processes, nor for the state to impose any restrictions on parties’ selection processes (except banning discrimination against protected classes–e.g., age, race, religion, sex.)
James,
Where you’ve gone astray is that the parties’ First Amendment right to select a nominee is necessarily limited to situations where there is in fact a nomination to select a nominee for. To use the party office analogy, the party has a right to select its own treasurer under whatever rules and from among whichever electorate the party itself chooses. But only insofar as there is a treasurer office to elect a treasurer to fill.
There is no constitutional right to elect a party nominee; there is no right for the party to have the “nominee” office. If the state withdraws the ballot placement privilege, there is no such thing as a party nominee. We see this in, for example, non-partisan soil and water conservation district elections. The political parties certainly may exercise their First Amendment rights and endorse any of the candidates for the soil and water conservation board, but they do not select a nominee.
Thus, a top-two election process (which is what the soil and water conservation district elections are–a top-X election process where X is the number of board members elected) is perfectly constitutional because there are no nominees. The only First Amendment issue possibly implicated here is whether a candidate can claim to be, or be listed on the ballot as, a party member if the party is unwilling to associate with him. There, the federal case law trend in cases when an individual wants to associate with a party and a party doesn’t want to associate with the individual favors the party’s right of disassociation. So, as long as there is no party identification on the ballot (as, again, there is not for soil and water), there is no constitutional defect at all.
Disclaimer: I am Warren, trying to change from verizon to gmail. I’ve never used gmail before, and it has some connection to this blog, so it’s using my gmail handle, not my name.
KCinDC, I really don’t know the mechanics of the preference method, so I will defer to you for now.
I do like the idea of abolishing the “ballot placement priviledge,” and of abolishing state-sponsored primary elections. If you hold a convention, you have to rent a convention hall; so if you want a primary, pay for it.
LaRouche -vs- Fowler
It is the right of the parties all the way down to the city/county levels to reject the right of an individual to run as a Democrat or Republican if that party rejects such individual. The party does not have to sign for that individual to run as a Democrat and thus he/she would not be able to be listed as such on a ballot. Thus says the Supreme Court.
Let me point out that Louisiana already has such a system, and I’ve never heard anyone argue it has made for better government.
In a district that is gerrymandered towards one party, it could end up helping party power brokers determine who the next elected is much more than under party primaries. Since such anoited candidates normally have plenty of resources, such a candidate could fairly easily finish in the top two. Under party primaries, an upstart who wins the nomination eliminates that candidate in the primary.
For once I agree with Henry. The open primary system has been a disaster in LA. That’s how they wound up with a runoff between David duke and Edwin Edwards for governor. With a about a dozen candidates in the first round dividing the conservative vote, the Klansman Duke, who ran as a Republican in spite of being repudiated by the GOP State Convention, was able to come in 2nd to Edwards, eliminating the GOP incumbent from the race. In the runoff, the GOP printed bumper stickers supporting the Democrat Edwards (VOTE for the Crook.)
In Virginia, the result would be every election for governor would be between a centrist Democrat or Republican and a religious zealot, since the churches will always be able to come in 2nd and ahead of principled candidates of either side of the aisle. Every election for governor would then be settled exclusively on the issue of abortion.
If we are to have Freedom of Association, then the parties should choose their own candidates in whichever way they prefer, without interference from crossover sabotage voters, but at the same time, the unreasonable hurdles placed in the way of smaller parties should be eliminated.
So my question is: should we scrap party primaries?
No – the parties should be able to choose their nominees by whatever method they may prefer. The taxpayers should not be handed the bill, however.