When Moses spent 40 years wandering through the desert, Exodus tells us that 70 elders assisted him in ruling those sometimes fractious Israelites. They apparently had a nasty habit of worshipping golden calves. We're much more sophisticated. We just worship gold. This biblical story is what underlies the strangely named Committee of Seventy, a Philly-based good government organization. It's had success in preventing Philadelphia pols from golden calf worship with a reform of campaign finance spending, at least in the promised land of Philadelphia. Now it's aim is at our closed primaries.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are actually eight different kinds of primary elections
1) Pennsylvania is one of just nine states who conduct closed primaries. Those are elections in which you must be a member of the political party in which candidates seek a party nomination. An Independent or Democrat, for example, is unable to vote in a Republican primary.
2) Six states conduct partially closed primaries in which parties are given the option of enfranchising unaffiliated voters, while still denying a vote to members of an opposing party.
3) Another six states conduct partially open primaries. In these elections, voters may cross party lines, but are automatically registered with the party when voting.
4) Nine states allow unaffiliated open primaries. In these elections, an unaffiliated voter can vote in a Democratic or Republican primary. Voters already registered with one party are denied the right to vote in another party's primary.
5) There are 15 pure open primary states. In these elections, a voter can decide to vote in a Democratic or Republican primary, regardless of his own political affiliation,.
6) Top Two primaries exist in California and Washington. All candidates running for an office are listed on the ballot, regardless of party. The top two vote getters face off in the general. (In Alaska, it is a top four election).
7) Lousiana has no primary. All candidates seeking an office are listed together, regardless of affiliation. If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, a runoff is held six weeks later.
8) Nebraska conducts nonpartisan primaries for the state legislature in which the party identity is actually removed from the candidate's name. The top two face off in the general.
In 2019, the Pennsylvania State Senate passed a bill providing for unaffiliated open primaries. The Bill would allow the state's unaffiliated voters to vote in primary elections as a Democrat or Republican. Voters already registered with a party would be restricted to that party. This bill died in the state house.
If independents were allowed to vote primaries, this would enfranchise 1 million people. Former LV Congressman Charlie Dent observes that our closed primary system "guarantees that fewer voters participate, elections are less competitive and, ultimately, political polarization is reinforced, contributing to legislative gridlock and hampering good governance."
Parties tend to nominate the extremes on the left and right even though most f us are in the middle. We need to change this.
Dent and former State Rep TJ Rooney will be participating in a breakfast discussion of this issue on March 21. If I can get up, I'll be there.
If we had unaffiliated open primaries in this state, I and I suspect many others would register as what we truly are - independents.
24 comments:
Should be open but won't happen. Our state legislators are the worst and lazy trough feeders in the country. They accomplish nothing but fatten their wallets, lifestyles and pensions. Should cut both the senate and legislature in half. They are useless so as it is.
Now the republicans want to tax retiree pensions and social security in Pa. Nice, real nice.
This is a bad idea, with the usual phony arguments being used to try to move it forward.
First, let’s be honest and admit that nobody is “disenfranchised”. Independents, and members of smaller parties have made a choice as to what party (or no party) they want to belong to. While I certainly disagree with the choices of many of them, I still can respect their decision. But if they want to have a say in the primary election of the major parties, they can change their registration and vote in those primaries. Nobody is prevented from doing so.
So while no VOTERS are truly disenfranchised from the process, I find it interesting that these types of proposals always seem to be pushed forward with the help of disenfranchised POLITICIANS (whether they were voted out of office or left before they could be). This proposal is apparently no different. I would argue that the FORMER politicians promoting this plan are likely doing it because they lack the introspection to understand why they are FORMER politicians, and in their arrogance can’t understand why voters were no longer willing to buy what they were selling.
Some politicians can never admit it when they lose touch with the voters, and instead believe there must be something wrong with the system. Never mind that it was the same system that got them elected. But when their fortunes shifted it had to be the system that was suddenly wrong, not them.
Also, spare me the sanctimonious argument that “Parties tend to nominate the extremes on the left and right even though most of us are in the middle.” I would argue that moderate politicians who were willing to sell out (they would say “compromise”) the principles that they ran on are what’s driven more voters away from the process than anything else. I also think that it's done more damage to our country than anything else. How often have we gotten poorly thought-out compromises that seemed to incorporate the WORST of what both sides wanted, instead of the best? The "middle" has done just as much (if not more) damage than those they try to label as "extreme".
Finally, beware of “good government” ideas coming from Philadelphia. The city is a poorly-run, one-party town that has problems far beyond who is voting in their primaries. I suspect this proposal has more to do with spreading that lack of diversity (of political ideas) and gaming the system more than anything else. Let the “Committee of Seventy” solve some of Philly’s problems first, then come back and push something like this on the rest of us.
I’d like to remove the labels Democrat and Republican entirely. They are mostly the same ‘UniParty’ now anyway. Both are full of grifters who remain in office well beyond their ‘Use By” date. Puppets one and all.
Seriously, if we could remove all shadow, special interest campaign funding a favors altogether we will get better decision-making on OUR own behalf.
I know this won’t be happening in my remaining lifetime, thus, I am registered in Northampton County as No Party. I make NO political donations, and I vote against anyone who is running for a third term. I don’t care who that is. After 2 terms, the rot has set in for good and must be cut out.
Let's be more like Europe: open up elections across affiliations with mail-in, and an absolute requirement for voter ID. Each side needs to come to its senses.
Very interesting Bernie. I always assumed all states did the same. Damn. I’m now living in the sunshine state in our retirement. I’ll have to pay more attention here to how they do elections.
I will tell you it is so much easier here in Fl to get your drivers license, car registration or any vehicle registered. They have a centralized office in each county. You walk in, tell the receptionist what your there for, get a number, wait for it to be called, and you go to one of 50 booths. You’re there maybe a total of 20-30 minutes in all.
If we were serious about making real changes: Ranked Choice Voting
RCV offers the following benefits:
promotes majority support
discourages negative campaigning (More civil elections: Ranked-choice voting creates an incentive for candidates to form coalitions, potentially discouraging negative campaigning.)
provides more choice to voters
minimizes strategic voting
promotes minority representation
saves money on primaries and runoffs.
Ranked Choice Voting eliminates the “spoiler” problem that drives voters to support the “lesser evil” instead of their preferred candidate.
Of course there is about as much hope for electoral changes as getting the money out of politics, our biggest problem.
How about establishing one rule for all the voters in these United States instead of each State making their own election laws. Think about that. One set of laws that means my vote REALLY DOES MEAN SOMETHING. The whole country is disenfranchised from the political process because our vote doesn't mean anything. LISTEN TO ME AMERICA. YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. I voted for two presidents that won their national elections by millions of votes, the popular vote, supposedly a mandate of the people, yet they were prohibited from taking office. This only happens in communist countries. Don't come around with this righteous bullshit about being disenfranchised when the whole country is disenfranchised in National Elections. I am so sick and tired of this false sincerity by people who claim to want to fix things for the masses and then neglect to fix the worse election laws of any free nation. Can you name for me any other free nation where a candidate can win by six million votes and not take office? I rest my case.
6:47 I'm having trouble finding where you actually make a point on why its a bad idea? You come across as a true partisan.
I cannot come up with an argument against open primaries. Like it or not, closed primaries force candidates to preach to the choir of their respective party. Wouldn't open primaries force candidates to actually speak to the majority of voters?
Just went to their website and it looks like the Committee of Seventy was formed in 1903 to combat corruption in Philadelphia.
Judging from the part of the website talking about their impact, it seems they believe they've made progress there.
Really? Does anyone think things have improved in Philly?
Sorry, but if they think they've succeeded in that city, they should have ZERO credibility regarding any of their "solutions".
How will I help my fellow Democrats if you open our state primaries?
I am a registered Republican and vote for the most unlikely candidate to help the Democrats.
Alternatively, independents could simply acknowledge that they live in a closed primary state and register with a party.
Open primaries would not necessarily lead to more centrist parties because many independents are not actually centrists. Many of them are actually more extreme than the 2 major parties. You can simply look at the list of open primary states to support this; they include some of the most extreme states in the country: AL, MS, OK, SC, VT, WA.
Open primaries also allow you to vote against candidates of the other party, which means some proportion of people will take this as an opportunity to promote the goofiest candidate in the opposing party, in thee hopes of making the playing field more favorable to their side. This seems not desirable to me.
10:12, having one uniform National system is supported by some progressives and some conservatives. The argument against it is that it makes widespread voter fraud far more likely. It makes it easier to hack into a system when there’s only one. On the other hand, it simplifies the role of elections officials. I am undecided.
"How will I help my fellow Democrats if you open our state primaries?
I am a registered Republican and vote for the most unlikely candidate to help the Democrats."
Lol. I switched from R to D in 2012 to do the same to Ds since my primaries were a snooze fest in my 80% red township. I suspect we registered saboteurs cancel each other out. But it makes the otherwise boring a little more interesting. Good stuff.
10:12 is right on target. Every public office is an office that gets filled by the popular vote except for the President of the United States. I too voted for a candidate for President, my candidate won, and my vote was a waste of time because the presidential candidate who got the most votes didn't win. Think about it Bernie, Six million people went to the polls and voted for a candidate who won the popular vote and they were simply told you six million people don't count, and you say you are undecided. That's where the fraud comes in to play.
I have been saying this for a long time. The closed primaries almost guarantee an extremist wins the election. Why should you have to declare a political party to vote in a primary? It's bullshit and I hope they put a stop to it.
Now the republicans want to tax retiree pensions and social security in Pa. Nice, real nice.
March 11, 2022 at 4:56 AM
What's the rest of the story 4:56AM?
Bernie I think you are missing the point of what 10:12 is getting at when he/she is venting about national disenfranchisement. I think 10:12 wants to eliminate the Electoral college. Anyway, that's what it sounds like to me. Good luck on that one.
Abolition of the electoral college is another subject. It has nothing to do with open primaries.
NorCo needs an Electoral College. 95% of the bordered county is not represented by the majority in county government. Perhaps a county split is in order, placing Easton and Bethlehem in a new South Northampton County and removing them from anything to do with the cleaner, safer, more fiscally responsible areas to their immediate north. I can't see where either group would have a problem with this. It's time to talk about an amicable divorce.
No matter what new Primary Election system is created, nor if every state chooses to use it, there is someone out there who will exploit its weaknesses to their political advantage. In other words, CHEAT. Been going on for years with success. Lying and deception is what humans now do without remorse.
For protection, no matter who is declared the winner, get them OUT of office as quickly as possible. In addition, rigidly adhere to our nation’s Constitution as it was originally written.
Yes!!!
6:47 has it right. I'm tired of all this talk about catering to virtue-signaling 'independents.' Take a stand and align with a party whose views more closely align with yours. I voted for Charlie Dent many times but would have voted against him (most likely) in a primary if he didn't bail out to yap on CNN. He let his moralistic disgust with Trump cost his constituents a seat in Congress. Charlie didn't agree with Trump's 'style.' Yet, can anybody name even ONE Democrat who left office because they were disgusted with Clinton's serial sexual harassment in the workplace....let alone credible accusations of rape?
I’m up for it. I think it’s a good idea mostly for all the reasons that 6:47 thinks it’s a bad idea. 6:47 wraps himself in the flag and prefers party without considering the pros or cons of the individual running.
@11:21
"Yet, can anybody name even ONE Democrat who left office because they were disgusted with Clinton's serial sexual harassment in the workplace....let alone credible accusations of rape?"
Replace Democrat with Republican and Clinton/Trump and that sentence is still accurate. Get off your high horse and stop bending over for right wing talking points and ideology that is just as morally bankrupt as what you seem to see on the left.
Post a Comment