Via RSS
Via Twitter
A Pennsylvania lawmaker is proposing legislation to allow all registered voters to vote in a primary election. Right now the state's primary system only allows members of the two major political parties to cast ballots for Republican or Democratic candidates. Still, some local party leaders aren't open to the idea of an open primary.Unsurprisingly, Republicans and Democrats seem to have come to a bipartisan consensus on the issue. Democrat Rick Daugherty: "For an Independent or a Republican to vote for our candidates. I think is completely insane." Republican Dawn Berrigan: "I don't like it simply because it opens the door for political mischief." Moses stresses, however, that "many voters we talked with disagree. They say the bill would give a voice to Independent and third- party voters." In response, Daugherty makes the obvious point, stating, "It is so easy for somebody to change their registration that there is really no barrier for anybody not to get involved with one of the primaries at any time."
The debate reveals one limitation of political independence. It is likely the case that many newly declared independents were and are unaware that their independent affiliation bars them from voting in primary contests. Absent independent or third party candidates running in future elections, we may well see a drop in the number of registered independents as the next primary season approaches.
7 comments:
An anti-bipolarchy approach to the open primary concept would be to establish a single primary in which all parties participate, effectively turning the process into the first round of a general election. Any number of Republicans, Democrats and independents would participate, and spaces on the general election ballot would be given to the three most popular candidates, at a minimum. In case that results with two finalists belonging to the same party, the law should discourage one from withdrawing in favor of the other by allocating the former's place on the ballot to the next highest vote getter should he or she withdraw. The major parties would probably want to choose single candidates before this open primary happens, but they shouldn't be able to do it at taxpayer expense. Let it be done privately with all the "undemocratic" implications of such a process. In any event, the guiding principle should be that the people, rather than the parties, should determine who appears on the ultimate ballot, if we must have an inherently limiting ballot at all.
I'm not sure precisely how to view the question of the open or closed primary from an anti-duopolist perspective. On the one hand, the closed primary would seem to marginalize the parties by disenfranchising independents, but also thereby provides an incentive for independents to affiliate with the party. On the other hand, the open primary allows independents to maintain their affiliation, but seems at the same time to undermine that affiliation by nonetheless drawing them into the fold. It would be interesting to see the various numbers from states with open primaries and contrast them with those from states with a closed process.
I see it pretty simply. The primary, as currently structured whether open or not, is a fundamental component of the duopoly. That belief has been reinforced as I collect signatures to run a Republican primary. Any doubts I may have had have been erased.
In my case, my independent attempt remains my true calling but I have fallen prey to the process because I'm looking to appeal to as many voters as possible since if elected, I represent them all even if they don't think so. Restrictive ballot laws have dictated my course to some extent. But if I can get on the ballot as a Republican and fail to establish an independent line for myself, I can still try to appeal to those unaffiliated, admittedly with less lustre.
So far, I'm finding the approach much more challenging than anticipated but also learning to iron out the wrinkles for the independent push. I've convinced myself, perhaps wrongly, that the course I've chosen to take is actually a natural course to bridging the gap to a true third party. I'm trying to make it as inclusive as possible. This might not work on a higher level, but I'm hoping to pull it off locally. The outcome will be interesting to me even if I wind up losing.
Michael, have you networked at all with local third party and independent activists?
Minimally. I have a bad habit of trusting people to do what they say...and they either don't come through or they betray me. I have a very close circle on this effort by design. If it fails, it's on me.
Yeah, there are a lot of flakes and snakes out there. Plus, if it succeeds, it's on you too.
Very helpful piece of writing, much thanks for the article.
Post a Comment