The Cry To Close Primaries
So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 7:12 ESV
I don’t normally stick scripture into my posts to make a point, but I thought the Golden Rule is applicable (of course, it should be applicable in our lives daily, but we all fall short…myself included). A hew and cry is being made over at RedState about a supposed 12 million Democrats voting (by the author’s figures) in the Republican Presidential Preference Primary this year.
I recall that a lot of conservatives, myself included, got a kick out of Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos in the 2008 election campaign to cause havoc in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary where we assumed Hillary would be crowned as the Democratic nominee and, ultimately, President of the United States. In fact, Limbaugh took credit for Clinton’s win in the Pennsylvania primary in 2008. Fast forward eight years later where we are in real danger of losing the White House again with Donald Trump, and there’s speculation that Democratic crossover votes during the primary may be to blame…and we really can’t complain about it if we celebrated Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos in 2008. They, if true, really are doing unto us what we did to them.
Is it possible that Democrats played a part in giving Trump the (presumptive) nomination? Maybe. Should states that have open primaries go to closed primaries? Ehh……I don’t know. I understand the premise, but I can see confusion and discontent reigning when people who have not or will not declare a party affiliation try to vote in a closed primary that used to be open.
The 2016 Convention of the Georgia Republican Party considered a resolution to exploring alternatives to the primary in the presidential election as well as other election methods. I see issues coming out of limiting the Republican presidential preference process to a limited number of people. Cries of how Republican politics is controlled by #TheEstablishment, the #GOPe, and #TheRepublicanRulingClass have dominated GOP circles, ironically perpetrated by the same folks advocating for closed primaries, for the past 3 or 4 election cycles. Limiting the number of ballots to those who attend their local GOP and TEA Party meetings won’t do anything to earn support of independents or, honestly, likely Republican voters.
We generally pride ourselves for having a fair and open primary system. The thought is that the best candidate will emerge victorious to carry the Republican mantle in November. Of course, the system surprises us (see this year’s GOP primary) from time to time and isn’t a perfect system, but it allows a broad base of participation from people who generally agree with Republican ideals. Sometimes there are outside forces that can tilt the election one way or the other. I believe a major factor in Trump’s win was the constant focus on his sideshow campaign by the 24×7 news cycle and social media (he, unfortunately, can’t help himself on Twitter).
I could be wrong, but I don’t expect closing or limiting the primary process will do much to prevent candidates like Trump. In fact, there are many Trump supporting Republicans who have been active in the Party for many years. Rather than limiting, we need to be expanding the Republican Party. Like I said in a previous piece, we, the GOP, need to be attractive to the many rather than the few.
About Author
nsmith
Father. IT Geek. Former 14th District GOP Chairman (2015-2017). Former Walker GOP Chairman (2009-2013). Resident of Chamblee. American. Georgian. Conservative.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If primaries were closed to only card carrying members of the two parties there would be no doubt where each party stands.
I’m fine with this as long as those same card carrying members are the ones footing the bills for those same primaries.
State and local primaries should be open with top two going to the general. Presidential nominees and/or official party nominees on the state and local open primary ballot can be however the party in question wants to hold their selection. Caucus, convention, or even a pre-primary makes no nevermind to me as long as they don’t use taxpayer money in that process. If taxpayer money is being used for any election then the voters should be given the option of voting for whom they think the best candidate is regardless of party.
Great idea. I would also like more non-partisan offices with county and municipal elections. And YES! taxpayer money should = open choice for all primary election voters.
How about we close the primaries AND lower the requirements for independents to get on the ballot?
There are three classes of people who choose not to enroll in political parties. There are honest-to-goodness ideological moderates who believe they cannot be defined by party ideologies. There’s are voters who may have ideological leanings one way or another but don’t like political parties. And there are people who are ideological extremists, for whom major parties don’t go far enough and often abstain from the ballot as a result.
A bit less than half of Sanders voters fall in the latter category — card-carrying Communists, socialists, Green Party refugees and the like who, often as not, vote for third parties or don’t vote at all. Sanders got 10 million votes. Consider that Nader earned 2.8 million in 2000.
I think some of that is happening with Trump. A lot of people who are completely disaffected decided Trump was their ticket and came to the ballot. Some of those are serious fascists who have had no proper option on the table and have written off electoral politics as a waste of time.
Closing a ballot is a mixed bag. It would require extremists to register if they see a candidate they like, which means … hooray!? We have fascists / Communists in our party! It would also mean a big-tent moderate from either party who is trying to appeal to the disaffected middle would have no chance of drawing in unaffiliated voters.
The problem with primaries is not whether they are open or closed. The problem, especially with presidential primaries, is the ‘winner takes most’ setup that both parties have adopted in many states. When there are 5+ candidates, and the one with the plurality gets 65% of the delegates, there is a problem. When there are 2 candidates and the one with 51% gets 65% of the delegates, there is a problem. (numbers are notional) Both parties have a system of bad rules, and instead of admitting what is wrong and fixing it, they just want to add more rules.
I would probably fit closest to George’s second category.
Obviously, I don’t care for party politics at all and prefer the open primary. I like the option to choose, on voting day which ballot to pull in a primary. Why? Because I don’t want to pre-register with a limited choice before candidates are registered. Because some candidates will do something really stupid and I might prefer the alternative by voting day. Because Political Parties no longer represent me. I’m glad I can do this in Georgia.
I think crossover voting is a myth. If anyone says they can prove it, then it means my vote has no privacy and there is a serious violation of election data going on.
Trump and Sanders did show that a person can get votes and get people to participate without party allegiance. I would love to see some evidence of Trump voters voting for for (A) “his ideas” (a stretch, I know) or (B) because he represented “Republican” to them. Sanders definitely brought Independents to the voting booth. They voted for a person and his policy visions, not because he was a Party(tm) candidate. If you really want to tick off Sanders supporters, just say “Welcome to the Party”. The moral of the story is these candidates ran and got votes on their own attraction. The system required them to Party-up to even get in the game. The Parties should take note and start promoting individual instead of pandering a loose platform that is tailored, packaged and promoted differently across every gerrymandered district. Here’s another pro-tip: People are rubberneckers, even on twitter. Million followers does not = 9million supporters/votes. Many people do get their sick fix and daily chuckles following twitter wars and talk radio.
As elections become tighter, meaning no clear frontrunner, the machinations of party protectionism are more apparent. The delegate system and its faults against truly relying on democratic majority are more evident when superdelegates (and other arcane rules) can determine a party nominee over voter count. But hey candidates, you signed up for the party, so work within their system. No whining.
The primary “season” should be shorter with more states having primaries closer together. The current system drags it out and relies heavily on surveys and “polls, polls, polls” to sway voters into following a trend. This is a devilishly clever campaign tool that has become a media obsession. Scarily, like negative attack ads, it works to convince voters to vote by the numbers rather than their early instincts. Fewer primaries, shorter time frame, could be more of a true reflection of voter sentiments. It would also give the victors more time to raise the all important $money$, and regrettably more time to annoys us into ennui by November election day. I long for the old days when the media and candidates just shut the H**** up for a month or so before the final push.
I agree with others, closed party primaries should be paid for by the parties not taxpayers. If I am paying for the election, I want open choice, decided on the day I cast my vote, not controlled by some contrived, pre-registration allegiance to a “malcontent club” political party.
>”I think crossover voting is a myth. If anyone says they can prove it, then it means my vote has no privacy and there is a serious violation of election data going on.”
Your voting history – whether you voted, whether you voted absentee or in-person – is public record. What party’s ballot you pull for a primary election is public record. If you have a history of pulling a R primary ballot, and then all of the sudden you pull a D – sounds like you’re a crossover voter.
Now, *who* you voted for, that’s secret. Though that’s legislative choice, not a Constitutional requirement – at least according to Justices Scalia and Roberts [Doe v. Reed, transcript, p. 12, 33-35]
Thanks. I knew your first point, but not the second.
Sanders was an independent but ran for president as a democrat. He used the party system to his advantage. If he was truly independent he should run as an independent.
Presidential/statewide office and non-statewide office primaries have very different Georgia circumstances. Georgia counties are generally tiny (in both geography and population), increasing the likelihood of effectively one-party counties. Even larger population counties are often decidedly predominantly one-party.
Open primaries are important because the primary is effectively the election for many if not most non-statewide offices.