[Speed Gibson,
Sunday September 19, 2004 at 10:26am]
Rethinking the Role of Primary Elections
We are now between the Primary and General elections of 2004. This system has always seemed flawed. Two major candidates of a major party may have to face elimination at the Primary election. But an unopposed minor party candidate with far less support than the defeated major party candidate is on the General ballot. There are many such minority parties, which means the General ballot often has more names to consider than does the Primary ballot.
The Primary classically is a political party mechanism, which is why you ask for a ballot for your party of choice. But clearly this concept is breaking down with low turnout and crossover voting.
Primaries also operate in non-partisan elections, such as for many local elections. Here, the Primary trims the field to the maximum allowed on the General ballot. In my city, there can be up to four candidates running for the two open Council seats. If more than four enter, the Primary election chooses those four. This Primary system works. If you can't muster the votes to make the list of four, you can hardly be considered a significant candidate in the General election.
Why couldn't this latter system serve us at all levels? For Governor, all who enter square off in the primary, with party affiliation shown. The two who survive square off in the General election. In 1998, that probably would have meant Republican Coleman vs. Independence Ventura. It might mean two Democrats or two Republicans or two minor party candidates someday.
But yes, we will almost always see the two major parties represented in November. The Greens, the Libertarians, and the other parties would howl, given the empirical reality is that America has a two party system. So let's make it the top three candidates that move on to the General election. This provides good incentive and debate from the minor parties, and makes crossover voting in the Primary all but pointless.
I also think party identification on all ballots is a good idea. I fail to see how hiding this tiny but important piece of information makes for better voters. I think this is especially important for the minor parties, with limited name recognition, and avoids any confusion where candidates have (or adopt) similar sounding names.
We clearly face some big challenges ahead in strengthening our election process. A simpler, more information General election ballot of truly qualified candidates from the Primary election would be a good start.
The Primary classically is a political party mechanism, which is why you ask for a ballot for your party of choice. But clearly this concept is breaking down with low turnout and crossover voting.
Primaries also operate in non-partisan elections, such as for many local elections. Here, the Primary trims the field to the maximum allowed on the General ballot. In my city, there can be up to four candidates running for the two open Council seats. If more than four enter, the Primary election chooses those four. This Primary system works. If you can't muster the votes to make the list of four, you can hardly be considered a significant candidate in the General election.
Why couldn't this latter system serve us at all levels? For Governor, all who enter square off in the primary, with party affiliation shown. The two who survive square off in the General election. In 1998, that probably would have meant Republican Coleman vs. Independence Ventura. It might mean two Democrats or two Republicans or two minor party candidates someday.
But yes, we will almost always see the two major parties represented in November. The Greens, the Libertarians, and the other parties would howl, given the empirical reality is that America has a two party system. So let's make it the top three candidates that move on to the General election. This provides good incentive and debate from the minor parties, and makes crossover voting in the Primary all but pointless.
I also think party identification on all ballots is a good idea. I fail to see how hiding this tiny but important piece of information makes for better voters. I think this is especially important for the minor parties, with limited name recognition, and avoids any confusion where candidates have (or adopt) similar sounding names.
We clearly face some big challenges ahead in strengthening our election process. A simpler, more information General election ballot of truly qualified candidates from the Primary election would be a good start.