I think we can do better than partisan primaries for selecting candidates. The Founders didn't use them; heck, they were not the norm for congressional elections until about 50 years ago. We're Amerucans---we can build a better mousetrap!
I'd love to hear or read your ideas on what a better primary might look like. I would be inclined to start with better candidates and campaigns (looking at you, consultant class) who run positive campaigns on policies and ideas and not drown us with negativity - it drives so many from elections, leaving them to the worst among us.
The first challenge is: how to get more voters to participate? The low-turnout priamries tend to be dominated by voters who are futher left and right of the median voters. So, maybe go with a Louisiana-style jungle where all canddiates run and if any gets to 50% then she is the winner, and if not, the top two runoff shortly afterward. Or, another possibility is to holf a party convention and use RCV or approval voting to select a canddiate with appeal beyond the political base of the party (like the VA GOP did when it picked Youngkin.) Just two possibilities...
When open primaries allow voters from the other party to influence the selection of that party's candidate, you can create an opportunity for mischief. At the very least, if both parties are using primaries to select their nominees, the primaries should be limited to party members and independents. However, there are some benefits to the "jungle primary" approach used by California and Louisiana. Congress is filled with members from districts with lopsided partisan majorities. In fact, only about 10% of House seats will be competitive this year. In these lopsided districts that hold a jungle primary, every candidate - Republican, Democratic, or Independent - run together. In an 80% Democratic district you are likely to end up with two Democrats winning first and second and facing off in the general election. But here is the good thing. Republican votes still matter because the two Democratic candidates need their votes to win in November. It has the effect of moderating the election campaigns of the two people from the same party. At least in theory.
That is a very interesting and insightful take. I am mindful of Louisiana's elections, which work well there, and where I've been involved in a campaign or two or three.
It is actually rather offensive that taxpayers have to fund party primaries in which only 20% of the electorate votes. In other words, only the activists and political junkies. Why should we sponsor their obsessions and agendas? Especially considering that those are the people who make it worse: they have specific goals, guaranteeing that we will get to choose only among those wanting to increase government commitments. General interests are not reflected in the 20%.
I propose parties sponsor their own ways of selecting their nominees, with no outside interference. If they want their opponents to choose their candidates, that's their own funeral; there's no cure for stupidity, but it's on them. Nor should there be any state laws governing the methods of choosing; parties are private organizations trying promote certain political goals. Let them have at it!
I understand the optics of taxpayer subsidization of primary elections (most, but not all), but I consider that a price for good government. And as I mentioned in the post, low participation is the bigger problem, not the cost to taxpayers. If more Americans would get involved, there’s wouldn’t be an issue with “only the activists and political junkies.” Participation in party primary elections has been halved over the past 30 years, and it was never that high to begin with.
But that's exactly the point. Things change, and rather than demanding certain behaviors from a populace in order to align with existing ways of doing things, doesn't it make more sense to change the way we do them, adjusting to the needs of the populace?
I don't accept the assumption that our current system leads to good government.
I think we can do better than partisan primaries for selecting candidates. The Founders didn't use them; heck, they were not the norm for congressional elections until about 50 years ago. We're Amerucans---we can build a better mousetrap!
I'd love to hear or read your ideas on what a better primary might look like. I would be inclined to start with better candidates and campaigns (looking at you, consultant class) who run positive campaigns on policies and ideas and not drown us with negativity - it drives so many from elections, leaving them to the worst among us.
The first challenge is: how to get more voters to participate? The low-turnout priamries tend to be dominated by voters who are futher left and right of the median voters. So, maybe go with a Louisiana-style jungle where all canddiates run and if any gets to 50% then she is the winner, and if not, the top two runoff shortly afterward. Or, another possibility is to holf a party convention and use RCV or approval voting to select a canddiate with appeal beyond the political base of the party (like the VA GOP did when it picked Youngkin.) Just two possibilities...
When open primaries allow voters from the other party to influence the selection of that party's candidate, you can create an opportunity for mischief. At the very least, if both parties are using primaries to select their nominees, the primaries should be limited to party members and independents. However, there are some benefits to the "jungle primary" approach used by California and Louisiana. Congress is filled with members from districts with lopsided partisan majorities. In fact, only about 10% of House seats will be competitive this year. In these lopsided districts that hold a jungle primary, every candidate - Republican, Democratic, or Independent - run together. In an 80% Democratic district you are likely to end up with two Democrats winning first and second and facing off in the general election. But here is the good thing. Republican votes still matter because the two Democratic candidates need their votes to win in November. It has the effect of moderating the election campaigns of the two people from the same party. At least in theory.
That is a very interesting and insightful take. I am mindful of Louisiana's elections, which work well there, and where I've been involved in a campaign or two or three.
It is actually rather offensive that taxpayers have to fund party primaries in which only 20% of the electorate votes. In other words, only the activists and political junkies. Why should we sponsor their obsessions and agendas? Especially considering that those are the people who make it worse: they have specific goals, guaranteeing that we will get to choose only among those wanting to increase government commitments. General interests are not reflected in the 20%.
I propose parties sponsor their own ways of selecting their nominees, with no outside interference. If they want their opponents to choose their candidates, that's their own funeral; there's no cure for stupidity, but it's on them. Nor should there be any state laws governing the methods of choosing; parties are private organizations trying promote certain political goals. Let them have at it!
I understand the optics of taxpayer subsidization of primary elections (most, but not all), but I consider that a price for good government. And as I mentioned in the post, low participation is the bigger problem, not the cost to taxpayers. If more Americans would get involved, there’s wouldn’t be an issue with “only the activists and political junkies.” Participation in party primary elections has been halved over the past 30 years, and it was never that high to begin with.
But that's exactly the point. Things change, and rather than demanding certain behaviors from a populace in order to align with existing ways of doing things, doesn't it make more sense to change the way we do them, adjusting to the needs of the populace?
I don't accept the assumption that our current system leads to good government.