This week's 
column at CAIVN takes a look at the growing pressure for open primaries in Pennsylvania.  Some excerpts:
With abysmally low voter turnout in the closed primary elections held   earlier this month in Pennsylvania, pressure is mounting to open the   process to Independents.  On  May 17th, Pennsylvania voters headed to the polls to cast their  ballots  in primary elections for county and municipal offices, school  boards  and judges.  Or rather, more precisely, voters didn’t head to  the polls  to cast their ballots in the state’s primary elections.  As  local Patch  columnist Tom De Martini wrote reflecting on the returns:  “Primary voter turnout is usually low,  but Tuesday's showing at  the polls was one of the worst I can recall  since I starting casting  ballots in 1979.”  One local CBS News affiliate felt it necessary to emphasize that, despite the low turnout, the  results still count: “low voter turnout was the theme for the day, even  though a few  key races were up for decision. A whopping 80 percent of  voters  bypassed the election, but the results still count.” 
Pennsylvania  is one of twenty states in which Independents and third  party voters are prohibited from casting a ballot in the Republican and  Democratic  party primaries, according to a tally  by The Center for Voting and Democracy.  Roughly one million   Pennsylvanians, about one in eight voters, are not affiliated with any   party or are registered with a third party.  The  abysmal showing in the primary elections by the state’s  Democrats and  Republicans is leading to increased calls for open  primaries . . .
When  faced with criticism of the closed primary system, its supporters  in  the Democratic and Republican parties often reply by stating that if   Independents desire to vote in the primary elections, they can simply   change their affiliation. Independents respond by pointing out  that if  the Democratic and Republican parties want publicly funded  primary  elections, these elections should not be effectively closed to the  public . . .
The  problem posed by Pennsylvania’s closed primary system is  exacerbated by  the fact that candidates for local and state offices  often cross-file  in both the Republican and Democratic primary  elections, which can  easily result in uncontested general election  races . . . 
Perhaps  one might argue that if Independent Pennsylvanians are so  frustrated  with the Democratic and Republican parties, they can  register their  discontent by voting for Independent or third party  candidates in the  general election.  But Democratic and Republican  party activists work  tirelessly to ensure that such candidates do not  appear on the ballot . . . 
5 comments:
There's some historic irony to this. Direct primaries were advocated 100 years ago as a democratic reform that would enable opponents to party leaders to appeal to the rank and file, as opposed to the convention system that was perceived to guarantee victory to the bosses' candidates. Apathy has too often brought about the same result that direct primaries were instituted to prevent. Meanwhile, independents clamor for the right to have some say in who ends up on the general election ballot, even if that means having to choose a least evil among Democrats or Republicans. The real problem is the ballot and the governing parties' ability to dictate the terms of access to it, and the solution may have less to do with liberalizing ballot access than with coming up with a 21st century alternative to the ballot as we know it.
I've looked a little bit into the history of the institution of the primary over the last year or so. Given that it was one of the major achievements of the early 20th century progressive movement, I'm sometimes surprised by the fact that there isn't more criticism of it by the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, and various tea party groups. Ironically, they are some of the strongest supporters of primaries. Maybe they just don't know that it's part of the progressive legacy?
@D.eris
>I'm sometimes surprised by the fact that there isn't more criticism of it by the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, and various tea party groups.<
Well Glenn Beck some time ago was touting public libraries and their infrastructure as an alternative to "public universities", yet was seemingly oblivious of how they were a major victory (or rather their proliferation thereof nation wise) of the progressive movement of the early 1900s he lambastes so much. So probably unaware...
@Wilson
>than with coming up with a 21st century alternative to the ballot as we know it.<
What are you suggesting here? You have me intrigued....
The ballot or the bullet? ;-)
Why vote with your ballot when you can vote with your bullets? 8-)
Post a Comment