Having just turned 18, I recently filled out
my voter registration papers to mail to my district office. After breezing
through my name, address, and other basic information, I reached the “Party
Identification” section: I had to label myself a Democrat, Republican or
Independent. I was hesitant to forever align myself with all the viewpoints
Democrats and Republicans attempt to encompass, so I wanted to register myself
an Independent. I knew though that some states didn’t allow Independents to
participate in important events like primaries, so I checked Pennsylvania’s
primary rules. It’s a good thing I had checked—I wouldn’t have been able to vote!
The parties of a state choose what type of
primary[1]
to hold each presidential season. Many are very detailed and complex, but the
types of presidential primaries generally follow three models:
Closed Primary – only members affiliated with that specific party can
participate in the primary
Semi-Closed Primary – members affiliated with that specific party and those
unaffiliated with any party (Independents) can vote
Open Primary – anyone
(affiliated or not) can participate in the primary
Pennsylvania, as I soon learned, uses a closed
primary system for its Democratic and Republican primary.
Conducting closed primaries is a terrible,
undemocratic practice.
If you are an Independent, a member of the Green
Party, or anything not directly affiliated with the two main parties, you can’t
participate in a closed primary. How can a democratic institution operate under
this principle? Barring people from voting for potential presidential
candidates because they don’t identify themselves with one of two ideologies?
It’s ridiculous. Especially to a generation decreasingly identifying themselves
with either of the two main parties, closed primaries have to go.
Approximately 30%[2]
of our electorate identify themselves as independents. That’s over 66.5 million
people that have a significantly reduced say in selecting the future
president. And there are many more people not registered as a Democrat,
Republican, or Independent who have no say in a closed primary. This is one of
the reasons why many Americans are so turned off by politics: they believe they
can’t influence anything. And to a degree, they’re right.
Allow open primaries where anybody can vote for any candidate. It is such a simple
change to make, yet it would mean a world of difference. At the very
least, change all closed primaries to semi-closed ones so more of the
electorate get to participate in selecting who ultimately runs for president.
But a party wants to select their best
candidate possible, so allowing non-party members with different ideals to
select candidates will only decrease the chances that a favorable candidate
will be selected, right?
Wrong. Entirely.
Allowing only party members to vote in their
primary ultimately leads to more polarized candidates being elected. This is
because only more politically active members (who are typically more polarized)
tend to participate in primaries.[3]
But if primaries allowed people from all ends of the spectrum to participate in
their processes, candidates selected from those primaries would be more
representative of the more moderate beliefs of the American public. This works
the same way that increasing the sample size of a statistical study ultimately
leads to more accurate results. By allowing independents and members of other
parties to impart their opinions and values, the two main parties actually have
a BETTER chance of getting their nominee to the white house because the
nominee will more accurately reflect the views of the entire American
population.
And just because someone is registered with
one party doesn’t mean they constantly want to vote along those lines. Often
times they do not like the candidates their own, out-of-touch party supports,
and they want to select the candidate they support most. We don’t always vote
for the party they are registered with, but closed primary systems require us
to act as if we do. Allow open primaries and fix this problem.
But isn’t it possible that members from one
party could go into an opposing party’s primary and support a less popular
candidate in the hopes that winning is made more difficult for the opposing
party’s favored candidate?
That’s called party raiding, and it does
occur. But both parties have the capability to do this, so the effect balances
itself out. Furthermore, such an insignificant fraction of those who vote in
primaries (which is unfortunately miniscule to begin with) partakes in this practice that
party raiding rarely produces results different from those of a pure primary.
If people do choose to raid the other party, that simply means they don’t get
to vote in their own primary, and sacrificing that opportunity is more foolish
and narrow-minded than party raiding itself. And like I mentioned before, there
are people who’re registered with a party they don’t plan on voting for—they
could just as easily “raid” the party’s primary since they’re already
registered with that party.
So my heartfelt congratulations to Alabama,
Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and
Wisconsin, the 17 states with open Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. And the semi-closed primaries of Massachusetts,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia tell me
that those states are on the right track.
Imagine yourself in a room. There’s a limited
supply of air and one window. Would you want that window closed or open?
Just as we live on air, our nation thrives on democracy—without that open
window, it is thinning.
[1] I
use the term “primary” throughout this post to refer to both primaries and
caucuses. Though primaries and caucuses function differently, their categories of participation are the same as those of primaries'.
[2] Abramson,
Aldrich and Rohde, Change and Continuity in the 2004 Elections, 2005;
Ambinder, "A Nation of Free Agents," Washington Post, September
3, 2006.
[3]
This is why candidates are forced to “change” their views during
their campaigns: in the primaries they are more ideologically extreme to appeal
to the voters in the primary and become the nominee, but in the general
election they ease their views to appeal to the more moderate American
population. I will make a post about this and general primary participation
rates later.
