So-Called "Open Primary" Eliminates Party Choice of Candidates
Are you really excited about the idea of having Republicans intentionally change their party registration to vote in the Democratic primary this May in order to vote for the "weaker" candidate as proposed by the Oregonian's David Reinhardt? Well if you want to game the closed party primary system, here's something that will eliminate the rights of registered party members to select party nominees altogether.
Why do proponents of the proposed ballot initiative to restrict the general election to two–and only and always two--candidates (a top-two primary system) keep trying to sell the idea this is an “open” primary?
The Oregon Supreme Court rejected their argument that their measure should be called an “open” primary. The US Supreme Court has explained the system is not an open primary which allows voters to vote in either parties’ primary, but what is called a “blanket” primary, instead.
In Keisling v. Myers the proponents argued that the ballot title should include the term “open primary.” Oregon’s Supreme Court called their description “inaccurate.” “[P]etitioners' assertion that adoption of the proposed measure would simply set up a “parallel” primary system is inaccurate. * * * [T]he new system would obliterate the old." The Court added that the system would radically alter the general election ballot as well.
In the Washington State Grange decision the US Supreme Court explained that the kind of system is a “blanket” primary.
“The term 'blanket primary' refers to a system in which 'any person, regardless of party affiliation, may vote for a party’s nominee.' California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U. S. 567, 576, n. 6 (2000). A blanket primary is distinct from an 'open primary,' in which a person
may vote for any party’s nominees, but must choose among that party’s nominees for all offices, ibid., and the more traditional 'closed primary' in which 'only persons who are members of the political party . . . can vote on its nominee,” id., at 570.'”
Why don’t the proponents describe their measure accurately instead of insisting on the misleading phrase “open primary?” The system will completely replace the partisan primaries–-which may be a good thing-- but why not tell people that is what the measure does? A good public policy choice should be able to stand on its own merits, not be propped up by misleading buzz words.
No buzz words needed
It's a bit misleading to hold up Reinhard's suggestion, Linda, since he was talking about the Presidential race, not statewide and legislative races, as is the case for the Open Primary.
When I talk about the open primary, I tell people that any voter can vote for any candidate in the primary election. Top two advance.
No buzz words needed.
Wet Blanket on "Open" primary
Reinhardt and Victoria Taft want to mess with registered Democrats' choice of their own (Presidential) candidate. The so-called "Open Primary" eliminates the rights of all registered party members in every party to chose the state candidates of their choice, leaving only the top-two for the general election--no one else can get on the ballot. In fact, that means the 2 biggest money-scrapers (and the ones able to hold onto a strong minority of fringe believers) before the May election will always go on to the general.
The top-2 primary is not an "open primary." That should be clear from the SCOTUS note, political science texts and the opinions of election law experts. As Richard Winger of Ballot Access News has repeatedly explained, here in a post to BlueOregon about an Oregon legislative version of the blanket primary which failed:
"BlueOregon would do a service to everyone, if it would use the vocabulary used all across the U.S. The type of primary defeated in the Senate yesterday should not be called "open primary". "Open primary" is defined in many political science textbooks, and in US Supreme Court opinions. It means a primary in which parties each have their own primary ballot." I think the Oregon Independent should also do its readers the "service" of using the correct terms for this process. See also "Nonpartisan Blanket Primary" in Wikipedia
This is a blanket style Louisiana primary--and how's that working out? Extremists advance because the candidate field is so large, and often the top-2 are a choice of worse and worser.
The Louisiana primary system does not produce general elections with moderates and its top-2 often have as little as 18% of the vote and yet advance. LA is notorious for candidates like David Duke, the former leader of the KKK, winning or coming close to winning high public office.
Much more at FairVote.org, summarized here:
Duke ran a strong second in the 1990 U.S. Senate election and gained a spot in the runoff election in the governor's race in 1991. In that 1991 runoff, he faced Edwin Edwards, a former governor with a history of suspected corruption. A popular bumper sticker in favor of Edwards was: "Vote the Crook: It's Important."
In the 1995 governor's race, sixteen candidates ran in the opening round, including four major candidates who ultimately won at least 18% of the vote. The two most ideologically extreme major candidates were Mike Foster, a conservative Republican who earned Pat Buchanan's endorsement and inherited much of David Duke's constituency, and Cleo Fields. a leading liberal Democrat in the Congressional Black Caucus. They advanced to the runoff election with a combined vote of only 45% of votes casts, with the more centrist vote split among other candidates. Foster ultimately was elected in the runoff election.
A Louisiana-style nonpartisan primary easily can produce these kind of results because in a large field of candidates, the top two vote-getters can have relatively few votes. In a multi-candidate field, this rule tends to favor non-moderate candidates with the strongest core support that can be narrow rather than broad. This lack of moderation is the exact opposite of one of the goals of blanket primary proponents like former California Congressman Tom Campbell.
The Louisiana primary system does not give voters more choice. Louisiana's nonpartisan primary can reduce voters' choices at the ballot box rather than increase them. Most importantly, few races have gone to a second round of voting, meaning that, until the state law was changed in 1998 to hold the primary in November and the general election in December, almost all federal races were decided in October in the opening primary round of election rather than in the general election in November. In fact, most races were won without any competition whatsoever. In Louisiana's congressional elections in 1998, for example, incumbents faced no opponents in five out of seven U.S. House seats and didn't even appear on the ballot . A sixth incumbent easily defeated two candidates from his party in the opening round. The final incumbent faced one challenger, whom he narrowly defeated. A total of 10 candidates ran for seven seats, with only one remotely close race.
In 1996, three out of seven House seats were uncontested, and two more were won by "landslide" victory margins of more than 20%. In 1994, there were no general elections for congressional seats because all of the races were decided in the opening primary round -- in these races six out of seven House races were won by landslides with an average victory margin of 86 percent. In 1992, six out of seven House races were won by landslides with huge victory margins. Louisiana has been using its nonpartisan primary since 1977; in the eleven election years since that time, only a single congressional incumbent has been defeated.