To make the concept of a truly Open Primary requires a number of actions to take place in a states Election Law:
Candidate
All candidates must have a chance to get on the ballot. Whichever system a states uses must be fair to all who want to be a candidate: number of signatures, filing fee, same amount of time to collect signatures, equal opportunity to get a message to the voters, etc. Then on a truly Open Primary they should have to option to designate the party they are registered with and their endorsements.
Voter
The voter must have the opportunity to select from all candidates for a position in a primary. Most systems force a voter to select from a single party's candidates. So when a party or state claims "we have an open primary" it just does not fit the bill. I as an independent may want to select different candidates from the major partys, minor partys, independents, or a write-in. How do I do that with most current systems? I would add Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to a primary which would allow me to select as my first choice a favorite son or daughter, vanity vote, etc. and then make an informed vote as my next or other choice(s).
Party
As an entity they have the right to use any selection process they want as long as they pay for it. I as a tax payer should not be paying for their selection process. With the open primary system I am talking about, members of a party who are not selected could still allow the states' voters make the final decision on who should represent them.
Final Selection Process
Here I am still open to suggestions. I do not like the idea of the 40%, 50%+1 concept. So I am like maybe Top Two. The voices who say what about write-ins, etc. not taking part in the General Election, under my system they take part in the Open process. Some say the Blanket Open Primary would be the way to go. Here the highest vote getter for a: party (major and minor), independents, write-ins, go to the General.
What do you think of my suggestions?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
3 comments:
This post sounds like the same arguments made in Williams v Rhodes by the state of Ohio. Everyone running for president could run in a presidential primary, Ohio said. So it was OK to confine the general election ballot to just Nixon and Humphrey. But the US Supreme Court said, no, even though George Wallace was free to have run in the presidential primary, voters had a right to vote for him in the general election. It is the right of voters to vote for someone in the election itself that Michael seems to denigrate. Federal law says "the" congressional election is in November, and if states want to have a run-off for Congress, it must be in December. Telling the voters that in the election itself, they can only vote for the two most popular candidates is a severe infraction on the right of voters.
I agree as I am not sure after an Open Primary how to handle the General Election. Part of the question is, with knowledge of a new open primary, will voters come out in enough numbers to be a true representation of the state's voters. At this time I agree most voters use the General Election to cast their vote. So I am still researching a better way to give the voters a better Open Primary / Open Ballot system.
Open Primaries doesn't have much to do with the general... directly anyway. Having a runoff after the general, if nobody gets 50%, makes a whole lot more sense than limiting the options people have in the general election.
Laws should be party, or lack there of, neutral. If a party wants to have their own primary internally, with no government funds, to narrow their own field voluntarily, they are certainly free to do so, but any primary that is government funded should be open to anyone who wants to vote for anyone else, and any candidates that meet a minimum requirement that is set for all should be able to be on the general election ballot.
Post a Comment