John Avlon has this piece at CNN, criticizing closed primaries. His argument is that closed primaries produced two undesirable outcomes in 2010: the Republican closed primary in Delaware nominated Christine O’Donnell for U.S. Senate, and the Democratic closed primary in the District of Columbia produced City Councilman Vincent Gray for Mayor.
Not everyone agrees that O’Donnell and Gray were “bad”, but even for those readers who agree with Avlon about those two politicians, the piece is not convincing because it ignores all the 2010 instances in which “bad” people were nominated in open primaries. “Bad” in the Avlon context, means politicians who are perceived as “far left” or “far right.”
Contradicting the Avlon thesis are these examples: (1) Joe Miller was nominated for U.S. Senate by the Alaska Republican Party, even though independent voters were permitted to participate. Alaska has more than twice as many independent voters as it has Republican voters; (2) Paul LePage was nominated for Governor by the Maine Republican Party, even though independent voters were able to participate. Maine has 27% more independent voters than it has Republican registrants; (3) Tom Emmer was nominated for Governor by the Minnesota Republican Party, even though Minnesota has open primaries; (4) Alvin M. Greene was nominated for U.S. Senate by the South Carolina Democratic Party, even though South Carolina has open primaries; (5) Scott Walker was nominated for Governor by the Wisconsin Republican Party, even though Wisconsin has open primaries.
Avlon’s piece also has a factual error. He says Washington, D.C. voters were not able to vote in the general election for Adrian Fenty, the outgoing Mayor who was defeated for re-election in the Democratic primary. But D.C. voters not only were able to vote for Fenty in the general election, 29,559 of the voters did vote for Fenty in the general election, by writing him in. Fenty could conceivably have been elected as a write-in if he had asked voters to vote for him, but he refused to lend any support to the write-in campaign organized by some of his supporters.
Two-thirds of members of the Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives are from open primary states. Political science research by Boris Shor and Seth Masket has shown that type of primary system is not correlated with partisanship and polarization in state legislatures. Finally, Avlon presents no evidence at all that Christine O’Donnell and Vincent Gray would have been defeated if their primaries had been open. Survey research has rebutted the idea that independents are less extreme than party members.
Pingback: “Christine O’Donnell: Exhibit A for getting rid of closed primaries” | Election Law Blog
Can you provide proof that unerolled Maine voters were allowed into the Republican primary? Parties in Maine have to specifically send a request to the Sec. of State allowing unerolled voters and I don’t recall the Republicans doing so.
I think “far right” is in the eye of the beholder, since in the general elections LePage won in Maine, Walker won in Wisconsin, and Emmer nearly won in Minnesota, none of them particularly conservative states. Joe Miller finished ahead of the Democrat in Alaska’s general election – does that mean that the Democrat was ipso facto “far left.”
But you are correct – basing an argument off one or two candidates winning closed primaries is pretty thin.
If you want better (which I presume means “more centrist” or at least “less extreme”) candidates, the problem isn’t primaries, it’s plurality.
Consensus-seeking election methods, like approval voting, would cut to the heart of the problem. Primaries are all-but inconsequential by comparison.
Big fan of this blog, but a few responses to this post:
1) I think the “factual error” you find in Avlon’s piece is pretty technical, borderline hairsplitting. Here’s the quote: “Independent voters and Republicans — who might well have been strong supporters of Fenty’s reforms — never had a chance to cast a ballot in this election for their mayor. Instead, the election was effectively over before the higher-turnout general election was ever held.” The odds of a write-in winning are about as good as a Republican or Independent ticket winning in the General. He should have qualified the first sentence, perhaps, with “never REALLY had a chance” or “to cast a ballot in the race that really mattered,” but the thrust of what he’s saying remains true.
2) All 5 examples given to contradict or cast doubt on his thesis refer to situations where an open primary was not enough to overcome the more radical partisan voters. I don’t think this really furthers your argument at all, that in some instances the votes of independents does not change the outcome. We already know that primaries attract more fringe voters. But this does not discount the potential for open primaries to encourage appeal to a broader base and allow independent voters to truly participate in the election of their representatives in a system where gerrymandering makes so many general elections foregone conclusions. Of course Avlon failed to name any positive examples and chose to make his discussion about wing-nut winners rather than relatively-centrist winners, so I guess that’s on him.
All that said, Avlon does overstate the case. I think much of the trouble with closed primaries is symbolic. I’m glad I live in an open primary state (Texas), but if I didn’t, I wouldn’t just register as a Republican because the GOP primaries are the only elections that matter where I live, for the most part.
#2, America Votes 28 by Rhodes Cook, on page 231, says, “Maine. Primary Type. Semi-open; unenrolled and new voters could vote in either party’s primary by enrolling in that party on primary day.”
Maine’s election-day registration makes it impossible for Maine to have a closed primary. I realize the 2011 session of the Maine legislature repealed election-day registration, but the repeal is on hold because a referendum petition succeeded to stop it until the voters can vote on whether to save election-day registration or not in November 2012.
#5, thanks for your thoughtful post. The voters of the District of Columbia used write-in voting to nominate Anthony Williams for Mayor in the September 2002 Democratic primary. Adrian Fenty could have been re-elected as a write-in in November 2010 if he had had the courage to try. Lisa Murkowski showed it could be done, and it is easier to win a write-in campaign in D.C., because the physical size of the District is small enough to recruit campaign workers in each precinct to help. That is how Williams did it in D.C. in 2002. He had workers outside each polling place, just outside the “no politics” zone, handing out little pencils with his name on them. D.C. voters are accustomed to writing in candidates. They do it for Neighborhood Commission elections frequently.
There should be only one super primary for every office: it’s called the general election. The “primary” could be done with online voting and the convention to nominate the candidates.
P.R. and App.V.
NO now super-dangerous primaries are needed or wanted — closed or open.
I agree w/ Avalon – closed primaries appear to be a major causal factor of the trend towards extremism and gridlock in the US Congress, the few exceptions notwithstanding. What Shor and Masket said about state legislatures doesn’t explain the conditions in Congress, and doesn’t try to.
Primaries where proposed and instituted by Progressives with the idea they would weaken party bosses. Today we just have a different kind of party boss – the ideological extremist activist. Open primaries, like California’s, have the potential to moderate extremism, but only if moderate voters become active. To facilitate that, we should have 21st Century election technology; like Internet voting. That would help to activate moderate voters in two ways. First, by being so convenient, voters of moderate motivation would vote more. Second, ease of voting can reduce alienation by empowering more voters, empowered voters vote more.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
#8 Americans Elect is doing that now; that is, using online voting (in June) to nominate candidates for the general election (to be held in polling places).
#8 That is how it is done in Louisiana.
I should add that during the general election campaign, there should be non-binding “trial primaries”. For example, within a U.S. House race, it could be all the counties that form the House district. These “trial primaries” would be done either online or under e-voting.
Primary elections were used by the two major parties in 1907 to stop the populist movement, the Republicans because they did not want anyone except party leaders choosing Republican nominees, and the Democrats because they had lost several Presidential elections because the populists in their party kept nominating William Jennings Bryan.
While independent voters are correct in saying that the two major parties have no right to exclude independent voters from elections that they have to pay for, the real issue is whether the two major parties are national parties the way the Nazi Party was a national party in Germany or the way the Communist Party was a national party in Russia. According to the Constitution, there is no national party in the United States, meaning that independent voters have the same right to participate in elections as anyone else.
Instead of nit-picking about party moves to exclude independent voters, independent voters need to say that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to independent voters, regardless of what any judges may say about it. The situation is identical to the Dred Scott decision. A wrong decision by a court does not remove the rights of the people. All it does is provide an opportunity for political parties and other factions seeking to oppress some segment of society to deny rights that people have.
For example, even though Jews in Nazi Germany were being executed by cyanide gas and cremated in ovens, they had the right to live, as was proven at the Nuremburg trials. The same principle applies to the right of independent voters to vote and to be candidates for office. The fact that those rights are being denied does not mean they do not exist.
#14 Mercy. Primaries came along in 1888-1890 in the States as an alleged major REFORM to END the EVIL rule of the EVIL top robot party hack leaders in picking extremist robot party hack candidates in robot party hack conventions/caucuses.
Primaries are now even more dangerous — picking EVIL arrogant party hack extremist MONSTERS in safe-seat gerrymander districts — who claim popular support for their extremist left/right stuff.
P.R. and App.V.
Gee how many New Age *democratic* nations have P.R. regimes ??? — Hmmm.
Germany – even after the 2 horrific World Wars
Israel – ONE national P.R. district
New Zealand – ex Brit gerrymander regime
Etc.
— even with SUPER-dangerous parliamentary regimes — having the same robot party hacks have major legislative and executive powers — i.e. merely 2/3 tyrants.
Hmmm. ANY major regime having BOTH P.R. and separation of legislative and executive powers ???
Hmmm. Why is the New Age media in the U.S.A. so brain dead ignorant about P.R. in most of the civilized nations in the world ???
For Presidential Elections, the 5 most important parties should get automatic ballot access. Since the U.S. Constitution says that in case of no Electoral College majority, the Congress will choose from the 5 highest electoral vote tallies.