Open primaries pushed
Wednesday, Jan 3, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
The open primary question was on more township ballots than I thought.
Supporters of allowing primary voters in Illinois to keep their party affiliation secret say they hope lawmakers will listen to the outcome of a number of local referendums held in November.
In more than 20 township advisory questions across the state, voters said they support a so-called open primary system by no less than 78 percent. The movement, spearheaded by Springfield attorney Sam Cahnman, who lost his race as a Democratic challenger for a state representative seat, was intended to get the Legislature to act. […]
About 20 states use a variation of the open primary system. Some states have seen court challenges to such rules.
The powers that be have always opposed open primaries, and Chris Mooney from UIS has his theory about why.
“Political parties need that information,” Mooney said. “The party people and the people running for office can go down to the county courthouse and get a list of their voters. It helps them strategize.”
The other, more philosophical reason, is that legislators are, for the most part, party creatures. “Closed” primaries force voters to decide which party to “join,” at least for that election. Perhaps the real problem happens when primary turnout becomes so low that too few people are deciding who will run in the fall.
Thoughts?
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 9:13 am:
So-called “open primaries” are an unconstitutional violation of a political party’s constitutional right of freedom not to associate. Political parties are private, voluntary associations.
Despite existing case law, the state has no compelling interest in regulating the internal candidate selection process of a political party–anyone who is unhappy with a party’s candidate selection process is free to join another party or start their own political party.
So-called “open primaries” force a political party to allow non-members to interfere in their internal candidate selection process; or even worse, they force political parties to accept, as members, anyone who wants to join.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 9:40 am:
Voters are thinking primaries are some kind of election that sends a winner to a November run-off. It is easy to fall into this misconception.
Political parties are private, but open to all. Primaries allow party members to choose a candidate from their group. If you want to vote in a primary, expect to be considered a party member after you have chosen a party ballot.
Open primaries are a corruption of the intention behind party primaries.
If you don’t want to be affiliated with a party, don’t vote in the primary. Simple.
- The Partisan Advantage - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 10:58 am:
Under the two theories above, wouldn’t one wonder why the 102 county clerks in Illinois don’t send a bill to the Democrat and Republican parties seeking reimbursement for the cost of the very public primary election for these “private, voluntary associations”?
But let’s call primaries what they really are: a taxpayer-funded way of boosting name-ID for established party candidates at the expense of independent candidates (who, until recently, faced unconstitutionally-high standards for just getting on the ballot, much less getting a primary election cycle of taxpayer-funded publicity).
If primaries are purely party-based, then the county property taxpayer should not have to foot the bill.
(Speaking of the high standard for third party and independent candidates, after this decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, won’t the General Assembly have to address new standards through legislation this year? Maybe a possible topic for discussion on this board?)
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 11:21 am:
Uh, let us not forget that the minor political parties also have primaries that are taxpayer supported.
If a primary election goal is to choose someone (nominate) for election by a political party, then the political party should have some control over the nomination process.
Under the open primary system, the party loses control over who it nominates for a particular office.
- Hal - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 12:21 pm:
I understand and agree with much of sentiment expressed in the previous comments.
Still, it seems like open primaries put more influence back into the hands of the people. Given that primaries aren’t just popularity contests within a private club but a process that helps determine who will run for public office, it makes some sense that people should have at least some say in who that will be.
Plus, it might end that horrid excuse of not wanting to vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 2:51 pm:
I agree with Partisan Advantage–primaries should not be taxpayer funded. A primary election is simply the method by which some political parties choose who their candidate will be in the general election.
Indicentally, some political parties do not use elections to select their candidates. For example, the Green Party uses a formal consensus process; which many Greens believe is a better way to make such decisions, so forcing them to use an “open primary” actually violates their right not only to choose who participates in their decision making process but also how those decisions are to be made.
In response to Louis G. Atsaves, by law there are only two types of political parties in the State of Illinois–new parties and established parties. Established parties are permitted to hold a primary election, new parties are not.
In response to Hal, more influence should be put back into the hands of an organization’s members–not the public at large. The public at large gets to vote for whatever candidate they want, including those nominated by political parties and independents, at the regular election.
- yinn - Wednesday, Jan 3, 07 @ 3:20 pm:
Primaries are supposed to be for party members to choose their best candidate to put up for election in the general. Open primaries make no sense for this reason, low turnout or no.
Also I think it’s irresponsible to push people to vote in any election who have no real idea what’s going on. Job One is to give people a reason to inform themselves.