40 Comments - What planet is he from again? - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:02 am: Sounds like a good idea to me. Being staunchly independent, I don’t vote in primaries (I probably would if they were open) so being able to choose who I want to vote for from a range instead of either/or would be a benefit. And anything to shorten the campaign cycle can’t be bad in my book. Uruguay has an interesting system where the parties run as many candidates as they want, and the candidate with the most votes from the party with the most combined votes is the winner. I kind of like that idea too. - reformer - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:07 am: It makes sense to use majority-rule to elect state officials. It can be done in a single-election using instant-runoff voting (IRV), which empowers voters to rank their top three choices, instead of voting for just one. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, then the last-place candidate is dropped and his second choice votes are distributed. This process continues until one candidate gets majority support. In addition to avoiding the cost of a second election, IRV gives candidates a strong incentive for positive campaigning, since mudslinging would reduce the chances of being the second choice of the voters supporting the target of mud. - anon - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:10 am: So, essentially, our Republican paper wants to rejigger the election system because their party can’t get their act together to present a candidate that most Illinois voters would actually care to elect? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:12 am: Stick to the question, please. Thanks. - Dirt Digger - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:14 am: IRV is the best way to make voting completely irrelevant, as it demonstrated in San Francisco when put to use: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/us/31bcjames.html As far as a nonpartisan primary goes, it would make life slightly more difficult for consultants in the business of sorting out voting data. Beyond that, based on my experience in Louisiana where a similar system was in place it would not change much. (I’m assuming the Tribune board wants this to boost Republican candidates statewide) - TrstMay - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:19 am: It sounds as though the Republicans want a chance to get one of the own in the Governor’s office. If you can’t win, change the rules. - Frank - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:19 am: No, the cost would be too high. You still have to hold partisan primaries every two years for State Rep seats, correct? - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:23 am: I am opposed. Since the majority of canidates have a party afiliation, tet afiliation should not be hidden from the voters. Also this ostenisbly would allow a single party to be the sole source of canidates in an election. Suppose I want to vote party a. Under this system a mix of party a and party b canidates run, but lets say party b has a lot fewer cnaidates. after the first election no body gets a majority, but we end up elminating all of the party a canidates such that the run off election is just for party b canidates, as they managed to pull the top percentages. I now have no way to elect a canidate from the party I support and whish to have representing me. to make politics work you gnerally need support from your political party; this has the ability to disenfranchise a voter from being able to strenhten or weaken a political parties over all control when they vote by iding the afiliation. The affiliation is still present, we all know that, we are just hiding it. - wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:26 am: No. I like the idea of big-tent parties, where there is give and take among competing interests and candidates have to take a stand for something. I think non-partisan primaries would just give more strength to the self-funders and those backed by now-secret big money who could overwhelm TV with a lot of pablum. It should be noted that the original backers of Chicago’s non-partisan system (Ed Burke, Rich Daley) were motivated by the desire to avoid a repeat of 1983, when Harold Washington won the three-way Democratic mayoral primary because Daley and Jane Byrne split the white vote. There are goo-goos, and then there are not-so-goo-goos. - Responsa - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:31 am: Any one who has ever served as an election judge knows that many voters hate saying in public whether they wish to receive a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. So this is an issue that should be thought about. But a non-partisan ballot scenario as described above is not the answer. - Emanuel Collective - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:32 am: Nate Silver of 538.com fame did a good analysis of these sorts of primaries which ultimately result in more conservative democrats and moderate republicans elected: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html - Draznnl - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:39 am: Once again, Wordslinger has summed up the issue quite clearly. I was plannning to say much the same thing, just not as clearly. - Louis Howe - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:47 am: No….Contrary to popular opinion— especially among the clueless and confused, who claim to be “independents”—there are fundamental differences between the two parties at the state and national level. Voting for “the person” maybe appropriate for the city council and school board, but not at the state level. - PFK - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 11:50 am: No. Party identity helps voters quickly assess a candidate’s view on a range of issues, so for state and federal offices that deal with a broader range of issues that affect the whole state or country, I think partisan identity matters more. At the lower levels of government, most of the issues are less about ideology, and more on practicality and meeting community needs (zoning, purchasing, etc). In that light, I think we should make more local offices non-partisan — all county offices, and special districts like forest preserves, MWRD. - OneMan - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:00 pm: == Voting for “the person” maybe appropriate for the city council and school board, but not at the state level. == Then why bother having actual candidates at the state level and just having party labels. It might not be a bad idea to have nonpartisan primaries, it would make primaries more interesting that’s for sure. - yinn - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:01 pm: I think each party should hold caucuses on their own dime, and government deals with just the general election. Any other way is either contrary to voter privacy, ripe for abuse, and/or too expensive. - Dooley Dudright - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:08 pm: “The drawback to adding a round of balloting is the cost.” Instant runoff voting (IRV) would obviate this issue. Were it to be so inclined — the Tribune’s editorial board COULD ask any number of experts for elucidation and enlightenment on IRV. Like, oh, I dunno…….Eric Zorn, for instance. Yes, the Trib’s very own Eric Zorn: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/03/irv.html That bit of snark/irony aside — with IRV, we could keep partisan primaries, stage single elections, AND rid ourselves of our ridiculous “anemic-plurality-takes-all” system. Through the use of ranked voting, and by dropping (in iterations) the lowest votegetters, every victor would emerge with 50%+. And no vote would be “wasted”. If an individual chose, say, Washington as #1 and Lincoln as #2, (and, say, Harding #3 and Coolidge #4), and if Washington were to be eliminated as the lowest overall votegetter, then that person’s choice of Lincoln would be elevated to #1, and the overall results would be recomputed successively until a single candidate emerged with fifty-plus. Hey, Eric, there’s a call holding for you. It’s the Editorial Board. Line three…… - Bubs - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:09 pm: The Brady scenario came about because there was too much ego and not enough leadership in the Illinois GOP. It’s more an example of a party gone wrong than a system gone wrong. My real concern is over the money. If every candidate had to be ready to run another month full blast after the General, they’d have to raise even more money. My phone rang off the hook for months (and it still does, now with politicians tryiong to pay off campaign debt.) The statewide elections are a horrific bonfire of cash in their present form, money that could be better used in other ways than enriching TV stations, printers, consultants and the U.S. Mail. Would this change things for the better or the worse? - Richard Afflis - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:10 pm: I support the non-partisan primary. I think it would increase voter turnout and the shorter election cycle would decrease the exasperation of voters. The information is out there for voters to make an informed decision. If I am not mistaken, in both primaries as well as the general election, no winner had a majority. I think it is better for everyone that the person who wins does so with a majority of support. As with the current system, the strategy utilized for victory by a candidate needs to be adjusted. The parties can come out just fine if not stronger for this. - Justice - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:14 pm: A friend recently told me that “Party labels are for tourists.” I believe in open voting with no declaration of party required at the voting booth. This doesn’t change the choices, nor their stance of policy and direction, but does encourage more voter participation. - piling on - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:35 pm: a blantant attempt to get more campaign advertising cash. - jake - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:37 pm: It might give more of an advantage than there now is to more centrist candidates. Now the candidates tend to move away from the center, to the left for the Democratic primary and to the right for a Republican primary. But in a nonpartisan primary, a centrist might well be the winner or one of the top two. For example, if this had been in place last year, Dillard would have come in far ahead of Brady in the primary and might have wound up in a runoff with either Hynes or Quinn. If it would have the effect of improving the chances of pragmatic problem solvers, rather than ideologues, it would be a good thing. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:40 pm: Something to consider is that Quinn and Hynes easily outpolled all Republicans during the Feb. primary. They each received at least three times as many votes as any single GOP candidate. Now, a nonpartisan primary might bring out a whole lot more voters, but what if the two top winners were, in reality, Democrats? The Trib might not like the idea so much then. Just sayin… - levois - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:43 pm: Keep things the way they are unless Illinois is miraculously unpopulated to the size of Chicago. All the same I would rather an open primary to simply having a non partisan primary. - SO IL M - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 12:58 pm: No. You dont change the rules of the game just because the other team is winning. You improve your team, and learn to win. Also, there was a Justice Dept. ruling in 2009 that said the town of Kinston, NC could not go to a nonpartisan primary. Another ruling by the Justice Dept. in 1994 where a school district wanted to drop partisan lables also said they had to stay partisan. - Ghost of John Brown - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 1:10 pm: GREATLY opposed. There is just too much room for shenanigans. Let me give an example. In the 2010 Gubernatorial Primaries, Quinn and Hynes both got approximately 450,000 each. On the Republican side, five candidates got between 100,000 and 155,000 votes. There were two Democrat candidates and seven Republican candidates. If you split up the vote, then it is very difficult to get into the top two position. If one party or the other wanted to play games, then they could easily run phoney candidates on the other side, which would ensure that their candidates would win. - titan - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 1:41 pm: IRV as some neat theoretical advantages, but I don’t know that it would translate out to real world advantages. Case in point, it is great if all of the voters rank all of the candidates from 1 to “X”. It works poorly when they don’t go all the way to “X” (and many won’t) or don’t start at 1, or rank more than one person with the same number, or skip numbers ….. Getting a voting system that electronically registers/scans numbered rankings (i.e. accurately reads a few million different handwritting styles) is tricky, and setting up ballots that give touch places or optical scan bubbles for all of the possible number rankings after each name takes a lot of extra room. - JustaJoe - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 1:48 pm: Forget theory. NO! Quoting the editorial…”But what if Illinois fully adopted the Chicago system”. That says enough. Chicago. One party. An entrenched “combine” all drinking from the same trough. What a stupid idea. - WRMNpolitics - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 2:04 pm: Yes. This would go a long way in opening the political process to candidates without party affiliation and would allow voters to vote for the individual they think will best serve. There should also be a change in the signature requirements to be on the ballot. All candidates should be required to have the same number of nominating signatures, unlike the current system that requires third party or independent candidates have multiples of the number of signature of the major parties. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 2:53 pm: If the problem, as some commenters have stated, is unwillingness to declare a party, that’s a problem easily solved by technology. The voting machines should be able to be coded with a choice by the user per user that would select the party. That information (which party) can still be stored in the database where it currently is (county clerk?) but encrypted or obscured so that no one can tell with just a quick look. So if needed for some legal issue, it could be retrieved but not to satisfy some nosy worker in an office. The parties could still find out who voted or not, they would just not know for which party. FWIW, I oppose nonpartisan primaries. I already wade through a long, long primary ballot and am unwilling to spend even more time researching judicial candidates! - Wondering if - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 2:57 pm: I’m opposed. Cattle call primaries could encourage more use of stealth candidates to sap support of one major candidate or another because it’s harder for the average voter to police who is legitimate and who is just a stalking horse. - MOON - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 3:14 pm: This proposal is a terrible idea. The purpose of primaries is to select the best Dem. and Rep. candidate. This proposal like the one limiting Party contributions in an election neuters the 2 Party System. Its just a back door way of increasing the newspaper and other medias influence on elections. - Captain Illini - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 3:34 pm: As an election judge for the past seven years, I can tell you that the number one reason in our area why voters do not come out in the primaries is due to the closed system. By far, declaring a party dissuades individuals from voting, especially if they are state employees, as some still believe it could be held against them. I am all for having non-partisan elections period. Listen, in past elections where one party was unopposed, I saw numerous individuals cross over and take the other ballot to influence the election of the other party…it happens both ways, so please no sanctimonious dribble about the reasons for electing the right Dem or Repub… - Wensicia - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 4:05 pm: No, I don’t see any benefit. You could end up with a runoff of same party candidates, leaving voters from opposing parties or views without a candidate. - Bluejay - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 4:41 pm: I think this is ultimately a good idea because it produces a winner that has greater than 50% of the final vote, and thus a majority and a mandate, and you don’t end up with a winner that was rejected by a majority of voters. Let’s say you had a situation where you had strong but equal Dem, Rep and Independent candidates for governor - under the current system you could end up with a winner who gained as little as 35% of the total vote. Its also possible that in a given year, the top 2 candidates of one party are actually the better qualified candidates for the office than the candidate of the other party. Let people pick the best candidate regardless of party label. Better that we have a clear cut winner than preserve party primaries. - Anon - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 5:24 pm: No. The better solution is greater ballot access. Even as a member of one party, it should be easier for independents to get on the ballot. - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 7:05 pm: Some very good comments above. I stronly oppose such an idea. As was originally stated, the whole idea was born out of a cynical, controlling concept by Daley and Burke because Harold Washington beat the former with less than a majority of the Primary Election vote. We already get two Elections now, each of the two major Parties get to have all of their respective candidated battle it out, two major winners are nominated, and, to boot, smaller Parties and Independents even get to do the same and/or pursue election in the General Election. Plus, you yourself raised a very germane point above wherein for any 2nd Run-off, the top 2 candidates who emerge, or who the Run-off is narrowed down to, may end up being from the SAME Political Party, thereby significantly, or at least likely potentially, alienating an extremely large, important segment of the voting electorate from the disenfranchised major Party not even being represented any further in the hypothetical Run-off–that development would thereby even further limit the extent and substance of the debate over key election issues in the Run-off….Not that the concept is not viable, it’s just not the BEST alternative in a free Democracy in which TWO, major Political Parties, and the throngs of citizens who mostly identify with one of those two Parties have such a major impact/voice on the ultimate outcome in a General Election, and, ultimately, as to the Public Policy which will primarily govern the State as a result…. - Park - Thursday, Feb 24, 11 @ 9:21 pm: Facially, it’s very attractive. In practice, just would not work the way it was intended. If the primary was moved close to the general, we wouldn’t even be discussing this. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 25, 11 @ 1:11 am: === Any one who has ever served as an election judge knows that many voters hate saying in public whether they wish to receive a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. === First, if people are ashamed of being Republicans, then they probably shouldn’t voting in the Republican Party. Secondly, its a pretty easy fix to add an additional screen to an electronic voting machine where folks decide which ballot they want. Third, based on the primary election results from 2010, where Quinn and Hynes both got over 450,000 votes and the next closest Republican was at 155,000, it would have likely been a Quinn-Hynes runoff. Brady was the nominee not because the nomination process is screwy, but because the GOP is screwy and had seven candidates running, including one guy who barely got more votes than the signature requirement. In the U.S. Senate race, it would have likely been Alexi v. Hoffman in the run-off…rather than running a hard negative campaign @ Alexi, Hoffman would have been forced to try to peel off votes in the middle and away from Kirk. Finally, if this ever becomes law, I’m going to legally change my name to Jesse White. - T.J. - Friday, Feb 25, 11 @ 1:51 am: Thanks to Dirt Digger for the best link in a long time. IRV is even worse in practice than on paper. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.