54 Comments - VanillaMan - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:16 am: fears open primaries… Those in power won those seats based on the corrupted rules of the current game. They will not change the rules since they have invested so much into how it is currently played. They will hide behind every point that defends the status quo. They will claim that primaries are closed events, not public ones. They will claim that they only want “pure” voters choosing candidates. They will claim that open primaries will force the costs up. They will claim that open primaries would corrupt the system even more. They will claim that opposition parties will cross party lines and wreck havoc during close primaries. They will claim that open primaries cause acne - anything to keep the current corrupted system functioning. The bill is necessary, but it is like forcing massively obese people to choose among various diets to keep them alive. The General Assembly would rather play political chicken on this, just as they continue to play political chicken with this state’s future on almost every issue. We cannot expect reform from those benefitting from the lack of reform. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:17 am: Fully supportive. Since the two major parties are propped up in so many ways by existing laws and policies, I think they should be treated as an arm of the state, and open to influence by all voters, whether Republican, Democratic, green, Libertarian, independent or otherwise. They’ve had it both ways for too long. AAMOF, I would be in favor of every voter being able to vote on all parties’ ballots. - Wow - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:18 am: Fully oppose. - Wow - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:20 am: sorry, forgot to explain. The Primary is a chance for each party to choose who they want to have run in the general election. If you are not affiliated with a party you don’t need to vote in a primary. - Third Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:20 am: Yes I support the bill. This encourages people voting for the best candidates. If you declare one party and then in the general election you vote a split ticket, you may not be voting for whom you want. - Belle - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:21 am: VM is spot on. The only thing I have to add is this - without the status quo the pols might have to campaign on a position, or think up a solution! This is one change that is WAY overdue. They blew it. - make it so - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:23 am: The process leaves out anyone who votes across party lines. - bored now - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:23 am: dumbest idea ever. ok, maybe not ever, but open primaries open up the system to perceived manipulation, which reduces confidence in election results. voters rarely have intense loyalties to candidates of different parties, and i certainly can’t think of an example where this happened in illinois… - steve schnorf - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:24 am: Oppose, for the same reasons as Link. If you want to choose the R candidate, vote in the R primary - Third Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:28 am: Bored now ===========and i certainly can’t think of an example where this happened in illinois===== I know many life long Chicago Democrats who could not vote for Stroger last election and voted for Peraica, for many it was the first time they voted GOP = - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:30 am: I oppose the bill. There’s value in having your own members to vote for your own candidates. If someone isn’t willing to vote because they have to have a D by their name for one election, then let them not vote for that party. Parties are membership organizations. Only their members (or at least willing to stand up and be called members for ONE day) should vote in their primary. - the Patriot - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:34 am: Support it. Yes, you will have some guys voting for the bad candidate on the other side, but in general, I think most people want to have the choice of the best two candidates in the general election. Second, if you really want to take a bite out of policitical corruption, eliminate how politicians track political affiliation. State workers and Union employees who may want to vote for a Republican are not allowed to vote for a republican because they are at risk of losing their jobs. Consider this. If union and state employees had been free to vote in the 2006 republican primary Oberweis beats Topinka. Then the masses who said they won’t vote for Blago or Tompinka maybe don’t go green. Not sure Obe beats Blago, but the conversation becomes a lot more interesting. Hey, people here have good points. It has some drawbacks, but what we are doing now is perpetuating corruption and intimidation at the polls. Why not try something else. - Captain Flume - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:34 am: Fully support. Open primaries protect a voter’s right to a private ballot. If the current declare-a-party primary is an intra-party popularity contest, then let the parties pay the cost of holding a primary and let taxpayers off the hook. - Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:36 am: I support the bill and agree with VM et al. It’s about controlling the process, and we should be able to vote for whomever we want in any election. Locally I cannot support the Republicans in county and local government that I like and work with since I pull a D ballot. That simply makes no sense and is unfair to the candidates and me. The parties make voting exclusionary through the current setup. Is that democratic, or is it opportunistic? - Heartless Libertarian - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:39 am: The primary system as it is now… is not closed enough. Anybody can pick up any ballot they want. You should have to be registered with the party 3 months in advance of the primary to get to vote in it. But no, the great idea is to hand people 2 ballots. Gee, people wouldn’t dare commit voter fraud… oh no. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:44 am: Opppose. People who are willing to “declare” a party by taking the ballot should be the ones deciding who that party’s candidates are. The alternative under consideration should be open elections, where everyone’s on the same ballot and the top two have a runoff if no one gets over 50%. Messing with the primary system because some Springfield chicken-livers worry that their primary ballot pull will be held against them is the tail wagging the dog (or some other appendage of the dog doing the wagging). Enforce the Rutan decree and leave party primaries alone. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:45 am: Talk to people at IDOT, CMS DHS other agencies about voting list of employees to see what type of ballot they called. It has been used against people at all levels of government. I think the open primary is a great idea. It is no business what party I call for. If I have friends on the other side that I want to help out, it is my business. - MikeintheSuburbs - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:46 am: I would take it one step further and allow voters to vote in different parties for different offices. It should be possible to do that easily with computerized voting machines. You would only vote once for each office so you would have to choose which party you were going to vote for in each individual race, and could only vote for one. The problem this addresses is that in most areas of the state, only one party really matters. If you want to have a meaningful voice in local elections, you may have to give up your voice in statewide and national races. I also don’t understand why many local offices are partisan at all. What is it about the county coroner that is affected by what party they belong to? What happens is that people who are interested in being elected locally sometimes have to pretend to be in a party they may not agree with or otherwise run hopeless race in the general election. Parties have even infected the township elections in certain areas. George Washington was right to oppose the formation of parties (”factions” in his parlance). They are just the lazy voter’s crutch so they don’t have to take the time to learn about the candidates. - Irish - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:54 am: It is amazing to me that these two folks would have responded the way they did. Their response vividly illustrates what is wrong with state government today and the GA especially. The fact that they would say these things shows what we all have been saying. The politicians still don’t get it. God forbid that a Republican would do anything to help a Democrat or vice versa. And whatever they do they shouldn’t work for ALL the constituents in their District just the right ones. Unbelieveable! I believe the reason this was set up long ago was so the politicos would know how people voted so they could make sure they did not give jobs and favors to the “wrong” people. I would think that open primaries would be a right step in true ethics reform. - Sonic Infidel - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 11:58 am: I think this debate misses the entire point. Primaries are party elections and should be held by the party, within the party. Open primaries sound good, but the opponents’ points have merit. Such primaries would indeed cost more and would indeed invite party raiding. Closed primaries, while they have less populist appeal, also have problems. For example, many state employees can’t vote in closed primaries due to the fact that it requires them to take a partisan position on public record. What’s the solution? Eliminate primaries as held by the state government, forcing the political parties to do their own dirty work and pay for their own candidate-selection process. - Irish - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:01 pm: Addendum — As a State employee I have not voted in a primary for the last 33 years for the reasons spelled out by = He Makes Ryan = above. It is high time we got rid of hard core partisanship. I would think that this actually could be a violation of individual’s voting rights as it restricts them from voting for half of the candidates. - corvax - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:09 pm: if these are parties’ elections, why aren’t the parties paying for them? if they’re for “members” of the parties only, why aren’t the respective politburos deciding? most regular people (the vast unwashed who don’t read this blog hourly) aren’t democrats or republicans (or (misnamed heartless) libertarians or commies), they’re moms, dads, grandparents, students, taxpayers, etc, who, when they take the trouble and time to exercise their right to vote, shouldn’t have it circumscribed by the powers-that-be. i like mikeinthesuburbs idea of opening it up even more on an office-by-office basis. that would teach the parties a lesson. - downstate hack - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:11 pm: Instead of targeting people who show up in primaries and limiting your campaign cost, you are now going to have to target more broadly the entire electorate in your primary,” Murphy said. I no not necessarily support this bill, but I am not sure that the fact we encourage fewer people to vote should be a positive reason. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:16 pm: I’m adamantly opposed. These are party nominations. A better “solution” to this nonproblem would be to eliminate partisan elections entirely, like Chicago’s system. Everybody runs together in the primary: Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. If no candidate wins 50%, then the top two primary finishers go head-to-head in the general election. - EmptySuitParade - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:30 pm: Bored Now: Actually the “dumbest idea ever” was from who ever allowed Bill Black to rescind his resignation Now the primary question Primaries are for party activists to select general election candidates. If people want to go to non partisan elections and run-offs so be it. Meanwhile the current system should stay in place. - Tom Joad - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:40 pm: The bill would result in boards and commissions that require party balance, i.e. 3 D’s 2 R’s on the ICC, would result in one party control. Lists of donors and campaign workers would be used instead of voting lists to make sure party supporters are appointed or hired. The result would be even more political than hiring is now. - Bird Man - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:41 pm: SUPPORT! Democrats and Republicans have mastered the closed primary game. They know their supporters and opponents. Most important, they know exactly what households to target in their campaign-season blitz. The result of Illinois’ closed primary election system is directly linked to this state’s dismal record of indicted public officials. Everyone wants to “throw the bums out” but due to our closed primary system, less than half of everyone actually participate in the process. Except for self-serving Party loyalists, the system is broken. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:41 pm: Open primaries? If you take away the right of party members to vote for who will represent the party on the ballot, then just eliminate primaries. And why not just eliminate primaries and just have a general election in November? That way the process is open completely and no one has an “R” or “D” or “G” next to their name on the ballot. Unless you allow the parties to slate in smoke filled (OK: smoke free) backrooms so that a Kirk can still have an “R” next to his name on the ballot, a Madigan a “D” etc., and see no public outcry for a return to the smoke filled room days (OK: smoke free)! Makes live miserable for political parties and political bosses and king makers for those who want them to be miserable. You save money for the State and counties in not having to fund elections, candidates can raise funds for one race only and use them for one race and you won’t have candidates who pander to the party bases during primaries with one message and then changing that message for the general election. Pure genius! (blush!) : -) - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:45 pm: Oops. Should have said “fund primary elections.” My bad! - Bill - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:45 pm: Completely opposed. I like things the way they are now. I am proud to declare myself a Democrat.If you won’t say what you are then you shouldn’t have a voice in who the party candidates are. - bman - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:50 pm: strongly in favor of open primaries. Look at the number of inept and crooked politicians our current system puts in office. Isn’t the purpose of to narrow down the field to the best candidates? Open primaries don’t have to be more costly, but maybe the candidates would have to be more honest to the constiuency. Open primaries could also eliminate shams like the election of emil jones jr. - Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 12:51 pm: Laws that discriminate against political parties that aren’t the Dems or GOP would seem to be wrong. And one of the ways the system discriminates is the primary system. The gov’t subsidizes the major party primaries. The media plays its part in propping up the two-party system. And the system pressures people to participate in the D and R primaries whether the Dems and GOP really reflect the vision of the voter. On some level, I sorta think the gov’t subsidized primaries should be ditched. The state parties would submit their lists of candidates to the state. And the state parties would make the rules to govern themselves, including how to pick their candidates. If the parties want to have primaries, let the parties pay for them. - Muskrat - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:01 pm: Support, as a halfway measure to a nonpartisan (and late-year) primary system. Anything that weakens the power of entrenched political parties in Illinois is a good thing. Party coherence can be a good thing (and in practice party identity and discipline would not disappear under such a system), but too much can be disastrous. - Captain Flume - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:05 pm: LGA is onto something. No primaries. Though I do think a run-off election might be wise to garner and legitimize substantive support for whomever gets elected. Most opposition to the open primary centers on party over people. If you are proud to be in the party you support, stick a sign in your lawn, but don’t stick voters with the tab to cover your enthusiasm. - Justice - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:06 pm: I support the legislation. As long as a person can be singled out because of their political affiliation, open primaries are important. Certainly those who have individually benefited from this “let’s you and him fight” mentality will always choose to see who is on one side or the other. This explains in great part, to me, why there is such bitter hate between parties, rather than cooperation. It starts with ‘who is on whose side’ so we can use their right to vote against them. This system supports and breeds fear and intimidation. - Wow - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:13 pm: Expanding on my earlier comment. In signing a petition a personal claims that they are a member of that party and that goes for Republican, Democrat, Green or whoever. A primary is so that parties can pick there favorite candidate. If we make for an open primary then we should do away with the primary election all together. Get rid of petitions and let everyone who wants to run, run. Then we can have an instant runoff for the two top vote getters. - Keep Smiling - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:19 pm: Yes, but it doesn’t go far enough. I’m afraid that whichever ballot is submitted will end up serving as a voters list and continue the abuse by appointed government officials in hiring and promotion decisions. If political parties are membership organizations and not governmental organizations, government agencies should not be able to obtain or use voter registration lists. Taxpayers deserve more assurance that their government is hiring and utilizing the most professionally qualified people, not those most dedicated to whichever political party has the governors seat. So more openness is a good thing. But I’d like to see greater protection of privacy and an eradication of the partisan misuse of voting records by appointed officials. - trafficmatt - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:19 pm: Fully oppose And, I can’t believe I agree with Terry Link. If we have open primaries, we have WAY too much chance for funny games. If there is a “safe” candidate for one side, then there is opportunity to vote on the other side to prop up the weakest candidate. There are dozens of examples of this - simple google search will show that. For instance, Arlen Specter is supporting open primaries in PA because he has ticked off his own party so much that he knows he can’t get re-nominated. - Proud Goo-Goo - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:27 pm: I want one primary ballot that has both the GOP and Dem candidates on it for each office. I have always hated having to forgo being able to pick my favorite in one race (say a GOP) in order to pick my fave in another (a Dem). BTW, what does this mean: “except in certain cases involving statewide political parties?” - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:46 pm: For Township elections, if a political party wants to caucus and slate a bunch of candidates as Democrats or Republicans, they have to use the stated party preference of the voter in the last primary in determining who participates in the caucus and votes in one of them. (February of 2008) The local taxpayer pays the caucus expenses. My understanding is you just can’t show up and say “I’m now a Republican” or “I’m now a Democrat” to gain admittance to one of those caucuses. To make “open” work: Eliminate primaries. Eliminate partisan caucuses. Eliminate party labels on ballots. Let everyone use the same signature requirements for petitions for each office that the current two parties use. And no run-offs, (we don’t have them for primaries now ) keep it as open and as pure as possible. The trade off for no run-offs would be eliminating gerrymandered districts that favor one party over another. If 12 Democrats run and one Republican runs in a heavily Democratic region, a Republican could have a better chance of winning, even a Rosanne Pulido type of candidate. The same would be true if the scenario I used was reversed. That is the real definition of “open” elections. If everyone is on board with this, I will even withdraw my blunt and public opposition to SB600! - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 1:55 pm: I agree with the stat puroses in the bill. As a voter I would like the best qualifies candidates to represented. Further more, I may prefer one party’s race on a national election but the other’s locally. For those who argue party purity, as long as public dollars are being spent then each voter gets a voice. If you want only members of your private club voting, hire a hall and collect the votes yourself. - Skeptic Cal - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 2:04 pm: The political bosses of BOTH parties really want to keep the Election Code the way it is. The whole thing is designed to allow 2 parties to fight each other but no new parties to get in. As to an “open primary” as long as the parties want to have the state pay for a substitute for a convention, the voters should be free to vote without fear that someone is keeping track. There is no justification for the public announcement I have to make asking for a ballot nor in keeping a public record of which ballot I chose this time. If taxpayers are funding it, it should be done to respect the privacy that elections normally require. Arguments about party line switching are distractions from any meaninful debate. Nothing in the bill makes that either more or less likely. Franly, abolishing the primary for statewide or local elections may be far preferable. - Skirmisher - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 2:05 pm: Absolutely I support it. If the Democrat and Republican parties were to run their party primaries and pay all associated costs from party coffers, then they can run the elections anyway they choose. However, they expect the taxpayers to pay a very substantial part of the cost. Therefore, the elections should be open and without restrictions, as they are in fact public elections and not private party caucuses. The claim that the parties have standing to dictate the terms of balloting is simply another fraud visited by our corrupt political process in this state. - Amy - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 2:06 pm: open primaries….no. join a party. and the most simple way to do that is by voting in the party’s primary. want to switch? do so the next time. you aren’t registered as a party member, you just decide to vote in that party’s primary. or not. your call. - one day at a time - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 2:07 pm: Support open primary philosphy…with these options… D for those who want a Dem ballot R for those who want a Rep. ballot I for those who want to vote for any/all parties candidates. - one day at a time - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 2:10 pm: re above I’ll wager the “I”s will have the highest turnout - David Starrett - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 3:09 pm: Since I originally drafted this bill for Rep. Curran back when I represented IVI-IPO down here, naturally I support it. At that time, it was pretty-much impossible to get the thing called on 3d Reading in the House. Just getting it out of Curran’s own committee was a serious challenge. Republicans universally opposed it, and Curran had to muscle it out with Dem’s unwilling to commit to anything more. Since then, some Republicans (notably Poe and Bomke) seem to have “got religion,” and are flying the open primary flag. The problem has been that recent sponsors have been introducing a political bill for political reasons. As a result their sponsorship has been somewhat half-hearted and ham-handed. The most persuasive arguments in favor of an open primary either elude them, or they haven’t bothered to think it through very well. Yesterday’s Senate debate was a good example. Bomke tried to sell the bill on the basis of increasing voter turnout per se. That allowed Link to respond with recent record turnout numbers (with Barack at the top of the ballot) and argue that everything is just peachy. In fact, some past supporters of the legislation, notably Sen. Larry Woolard (who was a county chairman) argued that the current system artificially inflates turnouts (and pollutes results) by making public employees feel obliged to vote or face some consequence later. The measure is not so much an “open primary” bill as it is a “secret ballot” bill. We think we have a secret ballot in Illinois, but in primaries we do not. There are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in this state who are either afraid to vote in primaries (the working press comes to mind) or feel compelled to vote in one or another primary because of the dominance of one or another party. Want your trash collected on time? Potholes fixed in your alleyway? Steve: you should re-read the bill. Voters are not permitted to cast ballots in both primaries, only one. You and I just don’t get to know which one. Think primaries should be card-carrying members only affairs? Fine. Let the card-carrying members pay for them. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 3:21 pm: The comments from partisans here are laughable. The 2 parties own 99.99% of the machinery of the electoral process and many laws mention them by name, and omit the names of every other political party in the state. Being that (theoretically) the government works for the people and not the other way around, the people (that’s all of us) should have a say in how both of these rigged and connected parties conduct their selection process. As far as the comments about cross voting screwing up the other party’s process, maybe it would produce better results than the pathetic ones we see now. Try it, we may like it. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 3:21 pm: Support — I hate anything that detracts from a secret ballot and primary preference is public information which one can find on certain pay databases. Same goes with caucuses in the primary — hate ‘em. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 3:25 pm: If there were several competitive parties, and none of them were rigged into the system as they are now, I would feel more strongly that each party should own its own process. I like the idea of no primaries, though…maybe we should have a general election where several candidates of all parties strut their stuff, and we get to pick the winner w/ instant runoff voting. Saves a lot of $ for the elections that we, the people pay for, and gives us more choices, too. - David Starrett - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 3:25 pm: One more thing: if you question the veracity of claims that people are afraid to disclose their political affiliation or feel compelled to (sometimes falsely) espouse one or another, take a look at how many “anonymous” or otherwise unidentifiable commentators there are on this politically-sensitive blog, and ask yourself: “why?” - Anon3 - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 6:27 pm: Against primaries are for parties to decide whom they wish to represent them. Part of life is standing up for what you believe in. Going into a polling place and asking for a D or R ballot is part of that.If you are unhappy with one party next time pick another. - Phil Huckelberry - Thursday, Apr 2, 09 @ 6:29 pm: It’s a bad bill. A completely open primary violates the freedom of association of the political parties by keeping them from knowing who is participating in their nomination processes. The Idaho Republican Party is entering into a lawsuit on this very issue, seeking to close their primary, and recent case law suggests they have a very good chance of winning. Since the blanket primary was found unconstitutional, it’s likely that totally open primaries, if challenged by the parties themselves, would be found unconstitutional as well. The Supreme Court has maintained that states have the discretion to require major parties to nominate by public primary. So long as that’s the law of the land, the parties must be able to know who is participating in their nominations. That’s the crux of it. There are a lot of other issues you could get into here, such as the efficacy of eliminating primaries altogether. But given the context that the primaries exist, they need to at least be semi-closed, and I’ve come around to thinking they should actually be more closed. I think a wide-open partisan registration system where you can register in any party regardless of ballot status might be preferable to what we have now. - steve schnorf - Friday, Apr 3, 09 @ 12:03 am: David, most of them want the freedom to say outrageous things anonymously Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.