Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:37:48 PM
When I
wrote earlier about fixing the primaries, there was one glaring omission, and one which recent events have highlighted.
If one thing needs to be eliminated form the primaries in a number of states it is the concept of "open primaries".
On paper, perhaps, the open primary sounds like a good idea. It allows independents, or even those from another party, to vote in a given party's primaries. I suppose the logic, if there is one, is that the party candidate will need to attract independents and cross-over votes, so having those same voters vote in a primary will likely give us a candidate with broader appeal.
However, I would argue that there are two very good argument AGAINST open primaries, and they far outweigh any possible advantage to electing a more "centrist" candidate.
First, the open primary allows for very easy sabotage by the other party. For example, assume party A has an incumbent president. In that case, the primary is of no value. A few will doubtless show up to show support for their incumbent, but nothing prevents the remainder from "crossing over" and voting for the weakest candidate in Party B's lineup, setting up the weakest opponent for their incumbent. Nor does this only apply for parties with incumbents, in many circumstances it would be better for a given member of a party to sabotage the opposing party rather than support a specific candidate in their own.
Second, and worse, the open primaries do exactly what they are supposed to do, and that is a bad thing. By helping to elect a "centrist" candidate rather than a strong partisan for the party, the open primaries tend to select candidates that are less appealing to the party faithful.
As I have argued elsewhere, "centrists" may appeal to the pundits and the chattering classes, but in general they disappoint most of the public, who want Republicans who look like Republicans and Democrats who look like Democrats, rather than bland, middle of the road mediocrities.
Even the public at large is not happy when candidates are insufficiently partisan. The pundits claim the public in general wants a "healer" and a "centrist", but if that is the case, why do those with strong feelings one way or the other tend to attract more "independents" than the bland nothings of the center? It is because, while the people in the middle, the undecided and independents, may want a government that averages out to a centrist policy, they want to choose between candidates who represent real positions. They may want the policies to eventually end up in the middle, but they want it as a result of fighting between two extremes. Even the undecided voters are disappointed when given a choice between two indistinguishable, uncommitted centrists.
Yet open primaries tend to favor precisely those candidates who disappoint both the party base and the public at large.
So, if we ever are to get results in primaries which are less than disappointing, in addition to
all the reforms I have already proposed, I would ask that we do away with these open primaries and return the selection of party candidates to the parties themselves, rather than allowing anyone off the street to take a stab at selecting them.