In an unsigned editorial in The Daily Advertiser, a Lafayette, Louisiana, based newspaper, yesterday comments onthe current movement back towards “open primaries” or “top two primaries” in Louisiana.
The first and loudest objection will be the one we cited earlier: Open primaries let everyone vote for anyone they want. But it’s important to remember that primaries are creatures of political parties, and their purpose is to choose political party nominees. In that sense, Louisiana didn’t really open the primaries. It abolished them.If allowing any registered voter to vote for any primary candidate was the goal, doing away with party registration and allowing everyone to request the ballot he or she wants to vote would have done the trick. If economizing on elections was the goal, well, Stalin and Hitler figured out startlingly effective ways to save on ballots.
The editorial serves as a good comparison between a state that is moving towards a Top Two system that has never used it, and a state that is considering going back to the system after having it for several decades. The editorial could just as easily have been written in California and seems to speak to the same concerns that many have about Proposition 14 in California.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Dale Sheldon-Hess // Apr 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Hear hear!
Although I would go further, and say that not only are primaries a product of the parties, but that they are the *only* product of the parties.
Plurality voting falls to pieces when there are more than two viable choices, so much of the political machinery in America is invested in assuring that there are only two viable choices.
The editorial pleads at the end for a “consensus building party system”. But the system that needs to be reformed isn’t the party, it’s the voting. Approval voting (or score voting) (and for single-winner elections, *only* approval voting and score voting) don’t break apart over a third candidate/party.
2 Green Party Conservative // Apr 30, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Bravo for this editorial…
As proof how well a multi party, and Green Party lead government works look to Sweden.
The Green Party is surging in the polls..
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62E0Z420100430
3 whatever // May 1, 2010 at 1:06 am
>>>Plurality voting falls to pieces when there are more than two viable choices
Yes, which is why the “open primary” system is so valuable. If primaries are a creatures of the parties, than the state shouldn’t subsidize primaries. The parties can hold their own conventions and nominate who they like and pay for it themselves.
Then they can run against everyone else in the open two-step MAJORITY system that precludes plurality victory as in La.
4 whatever // May 1, 2010 at 1:07 am
Though rank voting / instant-runoff would be better, 1. But this is stilla runoff sytem that allows for some ranked voting, albeit spread over four or five weeks.
5 Steve Rankin // May 1, 2010 at 7:11 pm
whatever says of the “top two,” The parties can hold their own conventions and nominate who they like…
In the “top two,” of course, there’s no legal way that a party can stop candidates who fail to win its nomination from nevertheless running in the first round of the “top two.” But a party could require anyone seeking its nomination to pledge to support the party’s nominee.
Suppose that (1) all of a party’s candidates sought the party’s nomination, and (2) all of the losers kept their promise to back the party’s nominee. Then grassroots voters would have fewer choices in the first round of the “top two,” as there would only be one candidate from that party on the ballot. And if mulitiple parties followed this process, the voters’ choices would really be limited.
Despite the fact that almost none of the states require 50%-plus to win a general election, the winners usually do get 50%-plus.
“If primaries are creatures of the parties, than the state shouldn’t subsidize primaries.”
In 1995, the 8th circuit said that, when the state compels parties to nominate by primary, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
If left to their own devices, as you indicate, the parties would nominate by convention or some other less-democratic process– due to the expense of primaries.
Leave a Comment