California Open Primaries Would Help Independents
Independents would be the true beneficiaries of California’s open primary initiative because primaries will occur on a more level playing field. It gives independents a greater chance to win the primary, and thus win the election, by opening the field to competition, regardless of party affiliation or ideology.
Which is why it’s strange that the New America Foundation’s Steven Hill is criticizing it. Hill calls it a “top two primary” because, according to Hill, it “bans” third parties from the general. Hill would appear to be a lone ranger off on a propaganda crusade with every newspaper he can find, to make sure this thing isn’t passed, at the expense of Democracy and common sense. Hill’s sensitivity and his rhetoric are unwarranted, and reflective of the same kind of partisan nitpicking and dissecting of rainbows, we need to do away with. He misses the big picture here. (And I feel the same way about rossl’s analysis of this.)
First, as a matter of rhetoric, it’s not a “top two primary” as Hill says; it’s a top two general election. There’s a big difference. The primary is come-one, come-all–that’s the whole point. For the same reason, it’s not accurate to say that third-parties are “banned” from the general when, in fact, they would be getting a fairer shake at getting in and winning the general.
Second, the suggested alternative–three person instant run-off–is ill-advised. In a run-off voters rank their top three choices among all comers. If a voter’s top choice does not receive the most votes, their vote goes to their second choice as the “run-off” vote, and so forth until you have a “majority” winner. The problem is that it could lead to inaccurate results (like the loser could actually win!), and more, not less, divisiveness.
The point would be to produce more moderate, center-left candidates with stronger majorities of political support. I question whether such political support can or should be contrived through a technocratic formula at the expense of clarity and correctness. Rather, it is acquired by candidates–on the streets, in living rooms, in Town Halls.
Which is not to say that our ideological biases can be removed in one, or two, or even three election cycles, as Hill ridiculously intimates. But they will be removed, if we open up the process now.
Finally, Hill’s assumptions on the 2008 Washington state open primaries are off. He claims, for example, that since only a few of the 2008 Washington races–6% in the House, and 8% in the Senate he asserts–produced general election candidates from the same party, that must mean that no additional moderate candidates were elected. Wrong. In fact, there is just as much of an incentive for candidates from different parties to take broader-based, more pragmatic positions, as there is for candidates from the same party — in both cases candidates are given an equal chance to pick off independents.
But the ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the open primaries is whether they are narrowing the ideological extremes and thus reducing rancor and gridlock in government. Hill’s evidence is neither here nor there on this point. Even if we accept Hill’s false assumption and his data, it’s wrong to say that the system didn’t work in Washington. Rather, it worked at 6% in the House and 8% in the Senate! That’s something and, in fact, could be pivotal is passing important pieces of legislation without costly delay and/or bitter infighting.
