The Independent View: Why Do States Pay for Primaries?

Jim Bennett writes a weekly column offering historical context to current events. Bennett served as Secretary of State of Alabama from 1993 – 2003 and from 2013 – 2015. He was a reporter for the Birmingham Post-Herald from 1961 to 1971.

He writes about Instant-Runoff voting (IRV).

There is the nagging question of why we have expensive runoffs? We don't require them in most states, for the General election where a plurality prevails. What's so special about a Primary?

Runoffs are expensive and the State has to pick up the tab even though, except for Constitutional amendments, they are strictly party affairs. The Secretary of State's Office estimates it will cost Alabama over $1 million to hold two District-wide runoffs April 12 to decide the outcome of a pair of seats on the State Board of Education plus a local District Attorney and two Circuit Judges.

There are other problems in scheduling elections.

He writes:

I can remember a statewide election in 2000 where voters went to the polls to decide the outcome of a Constitutional Amendment which asked whether the corporate income tax should be raised from 5 to 6 percent. The turnout was 7 percent of the voters statewide. The cost was $4 million. To make matters worse that was a Presidential election year where we had a Primary, a Runoff and a General election, inclusion in any one of which could have been done without additional cost. Votes like this are set in the legislative act which created them.

Bear in mind the State has to print ballots, pay for poll workers and line up voting places whether there's one race on the ballot or 50. That's why run-offs get so expensive.

And here is the kicker. Why is the State paying for Party Primaries in the first place? Other than wanting the State to pick up the tab, this is really a Party function. They could do it themselves or come up with some other selection method. Republicans used to have a convention to select its nominees. A minor party can do that in someone's living room or through caucuses.

Don't get me wrong. I do like the idea of voting in person. Another way to reduce run-offs would be to lower the winning margin in a three way race to a 40% plurality.

But maybe it's time we considered Instant-Runoff Voting which would cut costs and still provide a winner.

This process has been used in military voting where there is insufficient time to hold both a Primary and a Runoff to meet State deadlines, also is used in a number of cities. They were used in Alabama for military and overseas voters in both the 2013 and the 2014 Congressional races in the First and Sixth Districts with court approval.

He ends with:

As a side benefit, the instant runoff would be a powerful disincentive to negative campaigns. Voters aren't likely to bestow their second-choice votes on candidates who had been bashing their favorites.