Open Primaries - anybody have an opinion?

[Kali]

I have been studying my election pamphlet and know how I will vote on all the props but this. AZ is considering open primaries. Some of the arguments sound good and most of the proponents are solid. Most of the opponents are repukes, including that bastion of ethical politics Jan Brewer and her cohort, disgraced asshole Russel Pierce.

However one of my strongest guiding groups the LoWV also opposes this measure and I tend to give them the highest credibility in these kinds of matters. I understand CA and WA recently enacted this procedure but didn't pay attention to the feelings of DUers on it so I am asking now. What do you all think? And could this be a case of a good idea that just has some major flawed details in this particular case?

[DonViejo]

1. I guess we have open primaries in MA

On primary election day a voter goes into the polling area and can request a ballot for whatever party primary they want and regardless of their registration. The voter has to sign a statement that they requested the ballot and then, after casting her/his ballot, must sign another statement requesting her/his party affiliation remain the same as it was before they cast the ballot. Clear as mud?

[Kali]

2. Independants and "No Party Affiliation" can already do that here

this new thing would make the primaries a process where the top two vote-getters go to the General Election, no matter the party. And you can declare any strange kind of affiliation you want - chosen by god, for example.

Detractors are calling it an incumbant protection act. It sure has the local repukes running scared and I DO like that action anytime it happens, however these things tend to treat everybody the same so I see how it could sure backfire if/when we have a good Dem majority. Also the smaller parties - Greens and Libertarians are against it.

The main arguement pro that I like is it moderated pandering to extremists - if you are subject to the vote of EVERYBODY rather than only your own party you have to work to appeal to the whole rather than the activist extremes who vote in primaries. Or does that just promote center blandness?

This is kind of tough.

[MerryBlooms]

3. Have you seen this from AZ Week: Open Primary Proposition Forum--

snip>

Bolick said one of his objections is that the proposition is an attempt to manipulate the system to produce moderation.

"This is one of the rare initiatives where the framers of the initiative are admitting that they are doing this because they want to induce a particular political outcome," he said. "That is very contrary to notions of American democracy, where we let the chips fall where they may ... "

An academic researcher who has analyzed Proposition 121 agreed with Bolick's point that the proposal is designed to drive to a specific outcome.

"The idea is that we just have too idealogically extreme people in office, frankly, and that we can get the more moderate candidates by forcing a top-two system," said David Berman, senior research fellow for Arizona State University's Morrison Institute for Public Policy.


https://www.azpm.org/p/yourvote-featured/2012/9/21/15901-az-week-open-primary-proposition-forum/

After reading Proposition 121, I agree with LoWV.

[Kali]

4. I have a VERY high degree of trust in LoWV

but that point of intent I actually kind of agree with - with all the extreme right assholes wasting time on state sovereignty or stopping ethnic studies instead of doing their fucking jobs, I can see a good argument for electing moderates that can work with "the other side" on real problems.

[HopeHoops]

5. I think they make sense, but there are some problems even with closed primaries...

... that wouldn't be solved. Specifically, at least here in PA, it is common for state and local candidates to cross-file so as to appear on both ballots. That's misleading, especially in races where people aren't all that sure what the candidates stand for. If you vote straight ticket, how are those votes distributed in a "pick x of y" race? I've never gotten a clear answer on that.

If the primary was handled the same way as the general, meaning all candidates appear for each race they filed for with a SINGLE party affiliation associated with them (and I would include third parties in this) and races were decided by who got the most votes on down for multiple seat positions, I think it could work beautifully. I'd extend that to the national races as well. If the GOP has six running and the Dems have two, whichever wins the most of their party wins the primary for that party (and 3rd party candidates as well). Voters still would only get one vote per open seat. That would allow voting for candidates of all parties in the primary and make it clear to voters as to which party each candidate is affiliated with.

One more thing. That approach would also open the door for a serious challenge to the two party system at all levels. Whoever wins the majority for a seat for their party gets a spot on the general ballot in November. They're mostly locked out of that with the current system. The only problem I would have with that personally is losing the ability to protest vote, but the advantages far outweigh that loss. Jill Stein (Green) got my vote in the Republican party as a "none of the above", but with what I just proposed, she'd probably have gotten the nomination for Green AND appeared as an option along side Obama and rMoney in November. It may take a few cycles, but that should eventually lead to the elimination of "hold your nose and vote" at all levels.

The next challenge would be to eliminate the electoral college and go strictly with popular vote, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.