Partisan Primary May Be the Best We Have
Laura Sucheski
Last Updated: 10/30/08 Section: Opinion
In the land of constitutional initiatives and bond measures, nothing is outside the realm of the Californian voter's scalpel. We have our hands full this November with propositions ranging in topic from gay marriage and redistricting to animal cruelty and billions of dollars for a high speed train.
Here in the Great State of California, voters have the power to determine for themselves what the legislature owes them and what they are failing to provide and take action through initiatives, referenda, and recalls. Propositions generally call for more project spending, lower taxes, and procedural equality for equality's sake.
As we speak, Californians' second attempt at remodeling the primary election system sits in the Attorney General's office. The California Nonpartisan Primary Initiative is waiting for an official title and summary before it can be distributed as a petition in front of Wal-Marts and sporting events statewide. Pending the several hundred thousand necessary signatures, it will be placed on the June 2010 primary ballot.
Hasta la Vista, Party Registration
The amendments to the California State Constitution and Elections Code in the initiative would reform the state's primary election procedure. Currently, only two types of elections exist in the California. State law mandates that no party may nominate a candidate for judicial, county, and city offices, and the ballots for those offices do not contain any indication of party. Partisan (or party-nominated) elections for every other office, however, require the authorization of the candidate's stated party to run under that party's name.
This initiative would create a new class of elections, the voter-nominated election, which will entirely replace partisan elections for every state and national office except the presidency. Voters will no longer register with their preferred party, and no political party may nominate candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, Congress, State Senate, State Assembly, as well as a variety of other statewide offices. The candidates, however, would be permitted to indicate their party preference on the ballot.
In this system, voters may vote for one candidate regardless of affiliation, and the top two vote-getters proceed to the general election. When one must vote in a necessarily partisan primary, such as the nationwide presidential primary, he or she is asked to comply with the party rules and "declare that he or she regards himself or herself to be a member of that party." These partisan votes will be recorded separately for use by parties in allocating delegates, per the rules of the specific party.
Superficially, it's more fair in a state where almost 20 percent of voters who "decline to state" party preference are excluded from choosing nominees in primary elections. A strong argument in favor of this new voter-nominated system is that including this 20 percent in the primary process will ultimately yield more moderate candidates on both sides. It definitely would select a candidate that will win with over half the vote. But declined-to-state voters' failure to align with one party does not mean we should scrap the system for something more "open." Direct democracy is appealing, but not reliably fair. We need look only to France to see an example of a blanket primary gone wrong.
Warm and Fuzzy Blanket Primaries
In 2002, French voters selected two presidential candidates, Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen, who each won roughly one-sixth of the vote. The liberal-leaning vote split between a large number of candidates who were completely unrepresented in the general election. In the general, the people's options were a shady right-wing incumbent or (literally) an anti-Semitic fascist. The outraged citizens chose the lesser of two evils and voted against Le Pen, so Chirac won re-election with an unprecedented 82% of the vote. A large number of candidates per general ideology can prove fatal: for instance, if Majority Party A (55%) runs three candidates, and Minority Party B (45%) runs two, and each candidate gets an equal piece of their party's votes, both minority candidates will advance to the general election, leaving the electorate to choose between awful and worse.
It is conceivable, and historically evident, that in a blanket primary a certain radical faction may unify and mobilize its support into the general election. Say what you want about John McCain and Barack Obama, but their relative moderation comes from a partisan system that must appeal to a wide range of voters. Why throw it out now?
Under the initiative, the blanket primary system will plague state elected offices most severely. The integrity of the presidential primary will be roughly preserved. Yet, it assumes that no one plays dirty in politics. Only a few months ago, Rush Limbaugh was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary, in order to prolong the race and weaken both Democrats. Very little would hinder people from voting "strategically" in the blanket primary.
Grade-A, Supreme-Court-Certified Constitutional
Voters really like this stuff. In 1996, California voters approved a blanket primary system through Proposition 198, only to have the law overturned four years later by the Supreme Court in California Democratic Party v. Jones. The California Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom Parties filed suit against the state, claiming that this initiative violated their right to freely associate with their choice of candidate, and the law was found unconstitutional.
So we left the idea alone for awhile. Different permutations of the same concept were turned down in California in 2004 and Oregon in 2007. But just recently, Washington State passed a "voter-nominated" system by initiative in 2008. It was immediately challenged by the Washington State Republican Party on the grounds that it violated its free speech rights to associate with the party candidates of its choosing. Under the new Washington system, a candidate will simply indicate which party they prefer to be displayed beneath their name on the ballot. Political parties argue that this may mislead voters to believe that the party has endorsed this candidate, and that he or she embodies the party's philosophy. In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, the Supreme Court found the policy constitutional.
And this is where California saw an opportunity to follow Washington's footsteps. "Voter-nominated" blanket primaries are coming to the ballot sometime soon, and the Supreme Court can't help us now. The proper set of circumstances, coupled with this type of primary, may generate terribly unrepresentative results. It's the thought that counts, but let's leave "good enough" alone.
Laura Sucheski is a sophomore at CMC and a staff writer for the CI.
Here in the Great State of California, voters have the power to determine for themselves what the legislature owes them and what they are failing to provide and take action through initiatives, referenda, and recalls. Propositions generally call for more project spending, lower taxes, and procedural equality for equality's sake.
As we speak, Californians' second attempt at remodeling the primary election system sits in the Attorney General's office. The California Nonpartisan Primary Initiative is waiting for an official title and summary before it can be distributed as a petition in front of Wal-Marts and sporting events statewide. Pending the several hundred thousand necessary signatures, it will be placed on the June 2010 primary ballot.
Hasta la Vista, Party Registration
The amendments to the California State Constitution and Elections Code in the initiative would reform the state's primary election procedure. Currently, only two types of elections exist in the California. State law mandates that no party may nominate a candidate for judicial, county, and city offices, and the ballots for those offices do not contain any indication of party. Partisan (or party-nominated) elections for every other office, however, require the authorization of the candidate's stated party to run under that party's name.
This initiative would create a new class of elections, the voter-nominated election, which will entirely replace partisan elections for every state and national office except the presidency. Voters will no longer register with their preferred party, and no political party may nominate candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, Congress, State Senate, State Assembly, as well as a variety of other statewide offices. The candidates, however, would be permitted to indicate their party preference on the ballot.
In this system, voters may vote for one candidate regardless of affiliation, and the top two vote-getters proceed to the general election. When one must vote in a necessarily partisan primary, such as the nationwide presidential primary, he or she is asked to comply with the party rules and "declare that he or she regards himself or herself to be a member of that party." These partisan votes will be recorded separately for use by parties in allocating delegates, per the rules of the specific party.
Superficially, it's more fair in a state where almost 20 percent of voters who "decline to state" party preference are excluded from choosing nominees in primary elections. A strong argument in favor of this new voter-nominated system is that including this 20 percent in the primary process will ultimately yield more moderate candidates on both sides. It definitely would select a candidate that will win with over half the vote. But declined-to-state voters' failure to align with one party does not mean we should scrap the system for something more "open." Direct democracy is appealing, but not reliably fair. We need look only to France to see an example of a blanket primary gone wrong.
Warm and Fuzzy Blanket Primaries
In 2002, French voters selected two presidential candidates, Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen, who each won roughly one-sixth of the vote. The liberal-leaning vote split between a large number of candidates who were completely unrepresented in the general election. In the general, the people's options were a shady right-wing incumbent or (literally) an anti-Semitic fascist. The outraged citizens chose the lesser of two evils and voted against Le Pen, so Chirac won re-election with an unprecedented 82% of the vote. A large number of candidates per general ideology can prove fatal: for instance, if Majority Party A (55%) runs three candidates, and Minority Party B (45%) runs two, and each candidate gets an equal piece of their party's votes, both minority candidates will advance to the general election, leaving the electorate to choose between awful and worse.
It is conceivable, and historically evident, that in a blanket primary a certain radical faction may unify and mobilize its support into the general election. Say what you want about John McCain and Barack Obama, but their relative moderation comes from a partisan system that must appeal to a wide range of voters. Why throw it out now?
Under the initiative, the blanket primary system will plague state elected offices most severely. The integrity of the presidential primary will be roughly preserved. Yet, it assumes that no one plays dirty in politics. Only a few months ago, Rush Limbaugh was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary, in order to prolong the race and weaken both Democrats. Very little would hinder people from voting "strategically" in the blanket primary.
Grade-A, Supreme-Court-Certified Constitutional
Voters really like this stuff. In 1996, California voters approved a blanket primary system through Proposition 198, only to have the law overturned four years later by the Supreme Court in California Democratic Party v. Jones. The California Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom Parties filed suit against the state, claiming that this initiative violated their right to freely associate with their choice of candidate, and the law was found unconstitutional.
So we left the idea alone for awhile. Different permutations of the same concept were turned down in California in 2004 and Oregon in 2007. But just recently, Washington State passed a "voter-nominated" system by initiative in 2008. It was immediately challenged by the Washington State Republican Party on the grounds that it violated its free speech rights to associate with the party candidates of its choosing. Under the new Washington system, a candidate will simply indicate which party they prefer to be displayed beneath their name on the ballot. Political parties argue that this may mislead voters to believe that the party has endorsed this candidate, and that he or she embodies the party's philosophy. In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, the Supreme Court found the policy constitutional.
And this is where California saw an opportunity to follow Washington's footsteps. "Voter-nominated" blanket primaries are coming to the ballot sometime soon, and the Supreme Court can't help us now. The proper set of circumstances, coupled with this type of primary, may generate terribly unrepresentative results. It's the thought that counts, but let's leave "good enough" alone.
Laura Sucheski is a sophomore at CMC and a staff writer for the CI.
Be the first to comment on this story