This issue came up as a result of a lawsuit filed by the 24th District Republican Committee, which doesn’t want a primary election to choose a candidate. Incumbent state Sen. Emmett Hanger wants a primary and the Board of Elections has acknowledged that request and is moving forward.
In Virginia, the incumbent can choose the method of his or her re-election bid, either through an open primary or a convention. As the winner would be the representative for the Republican Party, understandably the committee wants only Republicans to pick. That can’t happen in an open primary system however, as Democrats, Republicans and independent voters each can pick a contest to vote in.
A convention meanwhile is limited to just delegates from a specific party, chosen by the local committees. Those can be tricky though. From the presidential level all the way down to the state, critics of conventions have argued since before 1900 that instead of listening to what voters in a party want, that model allows for a small group to make the decisions. For example, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran for the Republican presidential nomination and won primaries in nine of 12 states. William Howard Taft won only one state, but controlled the Republican National Convention and secured the nomination.
The editorial board says:
That a certain person is the Democratic or Republican nominee, if members of every party can cast a ballot for or against him? At that point, how is it any different than a general election, except for a lower turnout? It seems the options here are pretty clear. Either make a switch to closed primaries to allow for a “true” candidate to be selected from each party or just let voters choose from all of the candidates in November. In each election, we get letter after letter from people arguing that because all voters could cast a ballot, their primary nominee wasn’t truly selected by those in the party he represents. Switching to a closed primary would silence those arguments. If the candidate you support doesn’t win in a closed primary, that’s not because of outside influence from another group. It’s simply because he didn’t have enough support from members of your party.
The board continues:
On the other hand, just letting all candidates advance to the November election seems to have positives as well. First, it opens up the races. Instead of one Republican or Democratic candidate, there would be several to choose from with a better chance that people of all opinions are represented. Scrapping the current system also would save the state money at a time when the commonwealth could use some extra dollars. Instead of covering the cost for two elections, there would be just one. Candidates could save money, too, or voters could. Instead of being asked to contribute money for a primary and then later to a general election, there would be one single campaign.
Regardless of how the lawsuit turns out, it seems clear that the current system doesn’t achieve what it’s intended to. Maybe it’s time to consider a change.
I believe in this option, but would add Rank-Choice voting to eliminate a Run-Off.
But to make this work, Party Officer elections need to be on a separate ballot and closed for only for party members.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
No comments:
Post a Comment