Op-Ed | Open Up the Primaries
by Susan Bigelow | Sep 30, 2011 12:53pm
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election Policy, Opinion
Connecticut Republicans, busy looking for ways to attract presidential campaigns to our easily-neglected state, have changed the format of the April 2012 presidential preference primary from winner-take-all to a kind of confusing mashup of the previous system and proportional assignment of delegates. This isn’t likely to cause Mitt Romney to come bother you at home, since the honor of picking presidential candidates is usually reserved for irritable rural voters, but it might make the already Byzantine selection process a little more fair. Maybe.
Of course, if Connecticut’s political parties were actually interested in fairness, which they aren’t, they might consider doing the unthinkable and backing legislation to throw primaries at all levels open to everyone. Plenty of states do just that, even at the theoretically all-important presidential level, so why not? There are a lot of good reasons to do so, including the moderating effect of larger, more diverse voting pools participating in primaries and allowing more people to have a real say in districts where one party usually rules.
The arguments against open primaries usually come from committed partisans, and they always go a little something like this: party members should be free to choose their own candidates, open primaries water down the ideological intent of the party faithful and independents get their say in the general election anyway. The basic thrust behind a lot of these arguments is that the system is in place and working fine just the way it is. Unfortunately this is anything but true, as the paralysis affecting the nation’s capital illustrates.
We’re all aware of the problem. Republicans are doing everything they can to sabotage President Obama and the Democrats, and they’re making unprecedented use of procedural blocking tactics, breathtaking political brinksmanship and increasingly wild rhetoric to do so. The country suffers as a result, because as David Frum points out, Republicans have adopted the mindset and no-holds-barred tactics of a Westminster-system parliamentary party in an American system that was designed for compromise and collegiality. Now that Republicans have broken the seal, there’s no reason why traumatized and angry Democrats shouldn’t retaliate by using the exact same tactics on the next Republican administration, whenever it may arrive. In fact, one only has to look at the later Bush years to see the stirrings of just this sort of Democratic intransigence.
What does this have to do with primaries? Hyper-partisan closed primaries coupled with rotten redistricting practices are just one of the many causes of this creeping partisan rot. Safe districts created for a single party to dominate lead to the election being decided in the party primary, where it’s very easy for a committed and enthusiastic ideological minority to win. The primary and redistricting systems, especially when both are dominated by party members as they are in Connecticut, can result in election results that are good for parties and specific groups but bad for the kind of government that’s described in the Constitution.
We can do better, and we should. Primaries haven’t always been around, even in this country. Their origins lie with the original progressive movement that existed in the early part of the 20th century, and we’ve been tinkering with them ever since. Parties didn’t even fully replace the old convention system for choosing presidential candidates until the 1970s, and they’ve evolving even now. There is no reason why we can’t change them to something more open and democratic and less rabidly partisan. Redistricting practices, too, can be improved. The poster boy for redistricting reform is Speaker of the House Chris Donovan, who is still on the bipartisan redistricting committee even though he’s actively running for Congress in the soon-to-be redrawn 5th district. Sure, he’s not technically doing anything wrong by being there along with other legislators, but maybe none of them should be there at all. Every single person appointed to the redistricting committee has some sort of stake in the outcome.
A kind of solution for Connecticut and other states might lie in what California, which was one of the least governable states in the country thanks in part to creative, partisan redistricting and a flavor of closed primary. Now redistricting is done by a special nonpartisan panel, and the next primaries will weed out all but the top two candidates—regardless of party. In essence, California is enshrining in its laws and opening up what American primaries have already become: the first of two distinct rounds of elections.
California’s system likely isn’t perfect, and won’t be a fix for every problem the state’s politics have. But by design it’s intended to elect candidates who are far less ideologically driven, and far more likely to seek compromise. If we truly value our system of government, perhaps parties in Connecticut and elsewhere should look closely at what California is doing, and devise reforms of their own. We might not attract presidential candidates, but we might take a step towards making our democracy more sound.
Susan Bigelow is the former owner of CTLocalPolitics. She lives in Enfield with her wife and cats.
Tags: voting, primaries, connecticut, politics
(6) Comments
posted by: Luther Weeks | September 30, 2011 2:51pm
Be careful what you ask for. With open primaries in Connecticut you might find two Democrats running for each congressional and statewide office.
Might sound good for Democrats. But what would you do if there were say, four Republicans, three Democrats, along with three or four third-party and independent candidates? Do you vote for the one you really like, or the most acceptable to you of the three you think are most likely to win the Primary? It is a real crap shoot.
Would it have produced a different winner for Governor or Senate in 2010? Would it have been a better result in your opinion - then if you like this idea then maybe you are fighting the last war.
I for one, would like to see how it works out in CA and elsewhere a few times first.
posted by: ACR | September 30, 2011 8:15pm
The Connecticut Republican Party has already been down the Open Primary road, and we had wreck.
In 1982 Prescott Bush Jr had challanged Weicker had received around 24% (??) of the vote more than enough to primary.
Lowell didn’t like that and called to get his delegates to back his hair-brained idea to allow ind. to vote in state wide GOP primaries in case it ever happened again.
The delegates from the 1982 convention are convened for a the party rule change vote which despite the misgivings felt by many, passed.
1986 - Julie Belaga shows up and barely gets enough votes to primary at the convention; however with an open primary her campaign is far from over.
Sept. 9th 1986 - with an astonishing number of poll workers (same way Weicker won Gov in 1990) Belaga beats Bozzuto the GOP convention nominee.
Nov. 1986 - worst defeat (18%) in the history of the Republican Party in CT.
If someone wishes to vote in a partisin primary, they should be a member of that party.
Unaffilates could have changed their registration for last years August 10th primary to either party up till August 9th; thus there is no actual hardship.
posted by: mattw | September 30, 2011 11:12pm
California—like Connecticut—allowed for open primaries. All it takes (in CT) or took (in CA) was for the political parties to allow it in their rules.
In California, the Democrats had allowed unaffiliated voters (or “decline to state” voters in local parlance) to take part in primaries for many years until the introduction of “top two”, under the belief that it would ultimately lead more of those voters to side with the Democrats in the general election.
However, open primaries here seem to me a solution in search of a problem. I don’t have a serious problem with the idea, but do you seriously think that the primaries are pushing radicals and extremists to the fore? Are they in some way unrepresentative? I’ve been on the losing side of primaries before (more than a few, actually), and it sucks, but after the convention-only system was defeated in court, the system seems pretty accessible and fair.
The problem with redistricting is not that it’s partisan, it’s that it’s made up of incumbents, and requires bipartisanship. The only thing that group can agree to, or will agree to, is incumbency protection. That may be horrible in its own way, but is a force bending our politics towards a continuation of the status quo, not radicalism.
posted by: William Jenkins | October 1, 2011 9:00am
The law are fine as is, the law gives political parties the power to decide who votes in their primaries and who does not. The Republicans in Connecticut actually changed their party rules about 20 years ago to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their primaries which I think was wrong.
If you want a say in who gets the party’s nomination, then you have to join that party and participate in it. You’re a Democrat Chris, have you asked Nancy DiNardo about changing the Democrat party rules to allow unaffiliateds to vote in Democrat primaries or be members of Democratic Town Committees?
As usual, your opinions aren’t based in any real fact, they’re simply pure emotion and a whole lot of wrong assumptions and border on offensive.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | October 1, 2011 11:31am
“The problem with Democrats are Republicans!”
“In the absence of any enthusiasm for our governance the GOP is making us look bad.”
The best Primary rules I’ve seen allow Independents to vote in one of the two primaries but not both. Both primaries are held the same day. Party conventions can choose to disregard the indy vote.
With Electronic online Primaries becoming available I see this as less of an issue. The vote can be filtered by Party Registration and non- affiliated filtered out.
Which bring up another problem: why is the use of computer technology so backwards in politics? What would Bridgeport be like with a real online voting system? Isn’t it time we bid this out and be done with it?
We can go back to Judge Bork if you like and the war between Democrats and the GOP and misuse of the confirmation laws. Or FDR’s stacking the Court. Or…..
posted by: Richard Winger | October 3, 2011 1:09am
This story mixes up two different systems. 24 states have open primaries. But California, Washington, and Louisiana have top-two primaries. They are not the same thing.
Political scientists Boris Shor and Seth Masket have made extensive research, and have learned that there is no correlation between type of primary system, and how polarized and partisan a state’s politics are. Two-thirds of all members of the Tea Party Caucus in the US House are from open primary or top-two primary states.