Posted on 10/19/2004 11:57:53 PM PDT by neverdem
GUEST OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
With voters and the press fixated on the fiercest presidential race in decades, scant attention has been paid to a political revolution erupting on the West Coast - one that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California gave his support to this week. On Nov. 2, voters in Washington State and California are expected to approve initiatives to abolish the political party primary as we know it. Voters in Oregon may well pass a similar measure by 2006.
In almost every state, voters in primary elections now nominate Republican and Democratic standard-bearers for a wide range of offices, including United States senator and representative, state positions like governor, state legislator, even judge. While this system is simple, choices are limited. If you're a registered Republican or Democrat, you can choose only from candidates of the same ilk. (So-called crossover primaries, in which voters registered in one party could help nominate candidates in a rival party, were declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 2000.)
What if you're an officially "unaffiliated" voter? Or if you signed up with a minor party, like the Libertarians or Greens? In most places, either you're forced to "temporarily register" in a major party and vote only within that party's primary, or you simply get a "short ballot" restricted to nonpartisan races like county sheriff.
In the end, voter-approved Democratic and Republican nominees automatically advance to the general election. Minor-party candidates - typically nominated via caucuses or by petition - can also qualify for the November ballot, but in most places have little hope of being elected.
This would all change under the so-called voter choice and open primary measures in California and Washington. If passed, these initiatives would jettison the current system for one in which every voter - regardless of party registration, or the lack thereof - would get the same ballot in the primary. Every voter could vote for his favorite candidate of any party for each office. The top two vote-getters - whether they are registered to a particular party or not - would then advance to the November election.
How would the voter choice-open primary system change the dynamics of politics?
For one, it would almost certainly increase voter turnout. During the 2004 election cycle, turnout of registered voters in state primary elections seldom exceeded 35 percent. The median age of voters casting ballots was nearly 60. But most experts feel this would change under the new system, because every voter could participate fully in selecting the two major finalists for each office.
The measures would also treat all parties and candidates as equals. No party would be guaranteed having a finalist on the general election ballot. Rather, every candidate would have to earn that right by getting enough votes in the primary round.
The change would give voters true freedom of registration. Citizens would suffer no disadvantage by registering in whatever party organization that most closely reflected their own viewpoints, or in none at all. Today, many people who register as Republicans or Democrats feel coerced into doing so, since they can vote in primary nomination elections only if they affiliate with a major party.
The ballot measures would also promote majority governance, as they would eliminate spoiler candidates with little or no hope of being elected. With only two candidates on the ballot, nobody could be elected with less than 50 percent of the votes cast.
Finally, the ballot measures would encourage candor by those running for office. Candidates could speak directly to all voters from the beginning of their campaigns, rather than having to run zigzag races that first cater to fierce partisans in the party primary, then shift to the center in the fall.
These reforms have gained support for a good reason: because of demographic changes and the gerrymandering of legislative districts by both parties, an estimated 70 percent of Congressional and legislative races are no longer competitive. Win the primary, and you're virtually guaranteed election in November.
Critics of the ballot measures argue that such reform will undermine the two-party system that they feel has served America well for centuries. But this is a self-serving myth perpetuated by party leaders whose influence would be vastly diminished in an open marketplace of political ideas.
Indeed, the framers actually feared the excesses of partisanship and factionalism that now so dominate the landscape. That is why any requirement that primary elections must be organized on a partisan basis is glaringly absent from the federal Constitution and state constitutions.
Nearly every state could switch to open primaries through statute - amended either by state legislators or by voters in states with an initiative process. And on the West Coast, voters are ready to do exactly that. In Washington State, polls show this reform passing with more than 65 percent of the vote. A 2003 survey of Oregon voters showed 59 percent support - with Democrats and Republicans as supportive of the change as nonaffiliated voters. And Proposition 62 now on the ballot in California enjoys a 20-point lead - as well as the endorsement of a wide range of business, civic, and political leaders, including the governor.
In the long run, the most dangerous threat to democracy isn't the fierceness of our debates or the clamor of those with heartfelt arguments. Rather, it's the indifference of growing numbers of citizens who no longer engage in politics. Open primary laws would not abolish partisanship in politics, but redefine it. Rather than a narrow partisanship - focused primarily on party membership, labels and "hot button" issues - the open primary aims to promote a healthier, more vigorous partisanship based on ideas.
Phil Keisling, a Democrat, was Oregon secretary of state from 1991 to 1999. Sam Reed, a Republican, is secretary of state of Washington.
In my opinion, in CA it will kill the Republican party. The race will become a race between two Democrats like it had been for years in Louisiana before the Republican party grew big enough to compete.
But in CA, I don't think the Republican party is big enough to compete.
I supported the '96 open primaries but Prop. 62 is downright SCARY. It seems like it would totally undermine the purpose of the general election. Considering that fewer people vote in primary elections than general elections, it would seriously skew California politics.
Certain prominent moderate Republicans seem to support the measure, as they believe that it would help get more moderates elected. I believe such a philosophy could seriously backfire. Suppose, after the primary election, only two Democrats got a plurality of votes. How many Republicans would bother voting for either of them in November? What you have is a flip-flop where the primary becomes the general election, and the general election becomes the primary. Also, keep in mind that most "moderates" don't remain moderate for very long. Like Gray Davis.
Of course, the measure could in theory also hurt Democrats. Suppose you had many Democrats/Greens competing in the primary with only two Republican challengers. It's feasible that both Republicans might win, simply because the Democrat vote was too fractured. As such, I'd think you see politics where partisan groups would have to rally behind a single candidate before the primary even takes place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.