The Case for Closed Primaries
Party primaries (and caucuses and other comparable contests) are the means by which members of a political party can vote in the process to help determine who the party’s candidate should be for a particular office in the general campaign. Or at least they ought to be.
On the Republican side (which, admittedly, is the only side I really care about), of the 50 states of this great country, only 24 operate closed primaries, primaries which restrict voting to enrolled members of the Republican Party. Of the remaining 26, 16 operate open primaries, primaries open to every voter regardless of affiliation, and 10 operate modified primaries, which generally allow independents to vote in the primary of their choosing. (Although I concentrate on Republican primaries, most states have the same system in place for both parties.)
While it may seem nice to open up primaries to independents and those of one party who wish to vote for a candidate of the other party, such a system threatens the entire premise of political affiliation.
People register with a party because it is one which they most identify with the ideals of. As members of a political party, registered Republicans and Democrats ought to have influence over who becomes the nominee of their party in various elections. Because of this, I believe that it is improper to let non-party members vote in a primary that they are not affiliated with because the vote of the affiliated members would be, in essence and effect, diluted by those whose views do not necessarily or normally align with that of the party, as well as the underlying principle of political identification.
We have independents and members of minor parties in this country because not everyone fits in with the policies of the Big Two and because many don’t truly have an ideological inclination and may want to free themselves of partisanship. And while that’s fine for them, keeping party primaries within the family helps to ensure that the candidate the party nominates will best suit the party’s philosophy. Closing the primaries will bring out the strongest conservative Republicans to vote in the GOP primaries and, ultimately and unfortunately in my view at least, the most liberal Democrats out to the Democratic primaries. This will allow the parties, through the actions of their members, to filter out those who just don’t fit enough into the mold of the party, rather than allow outsiders to infiltrate or sway the party from its roots.
If the opinion I have just stated seems harsh, let’s look at it a different way. I am a registered Republican and I support Mitt Romney to be our next president. I want to ensure that he receives the full strength of my vote. Now New Hampshire, a modified primary state, voted for John McCain, arguably the most liberal candidate in the Republican field, 37-32 percent over Romney in their Republican presidential primary held on January 8. And while McCain was the legal victor of that first in the nation primary, if we examine the facts, CNN exit polls show that only 61 percent of Granite State Republican primary goers identified as Republicans. Among the Republicans, it was Romney who actually got the highest percentage, albeit a difference of one percent, over McCain, receiving 35 percent of the Republican vote. It was the 37 percent independent vote which I believe cost Romney in New Hampshire, as they voted a 40 percent plurality for McCain, just 27 percent for Romney. So – regardless of the fact that I live in Connecticut, a closed primary state – was this result fair to the real New Hampshire Republicans? No, as it was the independents, many of those with arguably weak ideological inclinations – not the conservative Republicans – who tipped the scales in favor of the maverick McCain.
Despite the unfairness to actual party members, some independent voters may whine that closed primaries are liken to disenfranchisement, in the sense that not being allowed to vote in a primary contradicts their right to be an independently minded voter. However, I must argue with them on the same basic grounds: Independent means independent, not a member of a political party. Thus, independents have just about as much fundamental right to vote in a party primary as I, a Connecticut resident, have a right to vote for the governor of Tennessee. If you wish to participate in the activities of a party, you ought to enroll in it before you partake. Being independent confers no rights or privileges to engage in the voting processes of established parties.
Folks, when it comes down to it all, you really register with a party for three main reasons: identification, if you want to run for an office, and/or the ability – ultimately granted to you by the party, not the government – to participate in primary elections. There is no legal decree which makes the Republican and Democratic Parties the official parties of the United States; their longstanding presence in the American political process, although widely accepted as the dominant forces in it, is de facto. Hence, there exists no Constitutional grounds to undermine the freedom of willful association. Government oversight of party primaries exists only because candidates are ultimately competing for elected governmental positions and the government is playing its necessary role in enforcing established rules regarding elections and the electoral processes. After all, once the primaries are over, the American people – Republicans, Democrats, what have you – will all vote to make the final decision of who is the ultimately elected candidate.
But when it comes down to primaries, keeping the participants within the party allows for the best implantation of the party’s goals via the selection of the best candidates to compete in general elections. This is in no way a concerted effort to disenfranchise independently minded voters, but rather means to prevent the gradual disenfranchisement of the members of political parties in their own nominating contests.
On the Republican side (which, admittedly, is the only side I really care about), of the 50 states of this great country, only 24 operate closed primaries, primaries which restrict voting to enrolled members of the Republican Party. Of the remaining 26, 16 operate open primaries, primaries open to every voter regardless of affiliation, and 10 operate modified primaries, which generally allow independents to vote in the primary of their choosing. (Although I concentrate on Republican primaries, most states have the same system in place for both parties.)
While it may seem nice to open up primaries to independents and those of one party who wish to vote for a candidate of the other party, such a system threatens the entire premise of political affiliation.
People register with a party because it is one which they most identify with the ideals of. As members of a political party, registered Republicans and Democrats ought to have influence over who becomes the nominee of their party in various elections. Because of this, I believe that it is improper to let non-party members vote in a primary that they are not affiliated with because the vote of the affiliated members would be, in essence and effect, diluted by those whose views do not necessarily or normally align with that of the party, as well as the underlying principle of political identification.
We have independents and members of minor parties in this country because not everyone fits in with the policies of the Big Two and because many don’t truly have an ideological inclination and may want to free themselves of partisanship. And while that’s fine for them, keeping party primaries within the family helps to ensure that the candidate the party nominates will best suit the party’s philosophy. Closing the primaries will bring out the strongest conservative Republicans to vote in the GOP primaries and, ultimately and unfortunately in my view at least, the most liberal Democrats out to the Democratic primaries. This will allow the parties, through the actions of their members, to filter out those who just don’t fit enough into the mold of the party, rather than allow outsiders to infiltrate or sway the party from its roots.
If the opinion I have just stated seems harsh, let’s look at it a different way. I am a registered Republican and I support Mitt Romney to be our next president. I want to ensure that he receives the full strength of my vote. Now New Hampshire, a modified primary state, voted for John McCain, arguably the most liberal candidate in the Republican field, 37-32 percent over Romney in their Republican presidential primary held on January 8. And while McCain was the legal victor of that first in the nation primary, if we examine the facts, CNN exit polls show that only 61 percent of Granite State Republican primary goers identified as Republicans. Among the Republicans, it was Romney who actually got the highest percentage, albeit a difference of one percent, over McCain, receiving 35 percent of the Republican vote. It was the 37 percent independent vote which I believe cost Romney in New Hampshire, as they voted a 40 percent plurality for McCain, just 27 percent for Romney. So – regardless of the fact that I live in Connecticut, a closed primary state – was this result fair to the real New Hampshire Republicans? No, as it was the independents, many of those with arguably weak ideological inclinations – not the conservative Republicans – who tipped the scales in favor of the maverick McCain.
Despite the unfairness to actual party members, some independent voters may whine that closed primaries are liken to disenfranchisement, in the sense that not being allowed to vote in a primary contradicts their right to be an independently minded voter. However, I must argue with them on the same basic grounds: Independent means independent, not a member of a political party. Thus, independents have just about as much fundamental right to vote in a party primary as I, a Connecticut resident, have a right to vote for the governor of Tennessee. If you wish to participate in the activities of a party, you ought to enroll in it before you partake. Being independent confers no rights or privileges to engage in the voting processes of established parties.
Folks, when it comes down to it all, you really register with a party for three main reasons: identification, if you want to run for an office, and/or the ability – ultimately granted to you by the party, not the government – to participate in primary elections. There is no legal decree which makes the Republican and Democratic Parties the official parties of the United States; their longstanding presence in the American political process, although widely accepted as the dominant forces in it, is de facto. Hence, there exists no Constitutional grounds to undermine the freedom of willful association. Government oversight of party primaries exists only because candidates are ultimately competing for elected governmental positions and the government is playing its necessary role in enforcing established rules regarding elections and the electoral processes. After all, once the primaries are over, the American people – Republicans, Democrats, what have you – will all vote to make the final decision of who is the ultimately elected candidate.
But when it comes down to primaries, keeping the participants within the party allows for the best implantation of the party’s goals via the selection of the best candidates to compete in general elections. This is in no way a concerted effort to disenfranchise independently minded voters, but rather means to prevent the gradual disenfranchisement of the members of political parties in their own nominating contests.
© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, Democrat, Politics, Primaries, Republican
posted by cptsteel31 at 4:41 AM
2 Comments:
Your argument makes a great case for putting the parties above the voters, but that's the very point! Many voters are tired of the parties interests being put above the voters. It's exactly what has produced a situation where our elected officials can't govern because there more concerned about getting elected than representing their constituencies.
Gwen
"Open All Primaries to Independents"
http://www.independentvoting.org/OpenPrimaries.html
I respect your input and I thank you for taking the time to be the first to comment on my blog. However, if it wasn't for the ability to participate in primaries, why even bother to register with a party? We have parties to unite people with common ideals which, although many factions within a party still exist, help to keep perspective candidates on track at representing those with similar ideals. I don't believe that allowing independents to vote in party primaries will do much of anything to change the fact that many politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are too concerned about their own political futures than the desires of who they represent. It just, sadly, often comes with the profession. Our best hope at changing that will ultimately be on Election Day when all voters engage in the democratic process. In that way it will be the people, not the parties, with the final say.
-Justin
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home