Independents Go Home: Open Primaries are Killing Democracy

Independents Go Home: Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy

By Ted Rall

Created Jan 30 2008 - 9:21am

Check out this political mystery: Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are

angry. They're so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former

vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous

with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They're in the mood for payback.

So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to

appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the

frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant

centrist of the DLC, running a close second?

Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who

can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a

hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The

most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp.

match-up poll, is John Edwards.

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is

the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November

2008]," says Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. But Edwards hasn't won

a single primary.

What's going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for

the two candidates least likely to win--candidates who want to sing Kumbaya

with the Republicans?

As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their

corporate owners are scared of him. But there's a second reason that the

Democratic primaries have "gotten terribly off track," in the words of The

New York Times' Paul Krugman.

A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.

As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have

benefited from these open primaries. "Obama is winning independents, McCain

is winning independents," says Professor Fiorina.

Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries,

but history paints a clear picture. There hasn't been a left-wing Democratic

nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican

one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan

and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open

primaries as part of a "big tent" strategy--people who vote for party X in

the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X's nominee in the

fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out "extreme" candidates

(see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad

appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open

primaries--which have yet to be statistically proven--come at a steep price.

As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, "people who identify

as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than

independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues,

are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets

and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most

independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more

amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and

candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political

values."

Independents complain that "closed primaries"--Democratic primaries are only

open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans--deny them a voice.

In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is

no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch

from one party's primaries to the other's, all you have to do is fill out a

form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of

party affiliation.

The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open

primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the

worst Republican. Even "honest" independents queer the process by reducing

the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party's

nomination. This year, they're boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom

have generated much enthusiasm from their party's bases. (If these two men

face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to

better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also

find McCain's right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other

hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)

Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging

campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties

nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore

and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast

protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3

percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue

divide.

Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and

conservatives who make up the two major parties' bases. When your party's

standardbearer doesn't promise much, there isn't a lot to win. Nor is there

much to lose if the enemy party's nominee seems relatively reasonable. The

Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade,

immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections

offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will

start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.

Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are "akin to casual sports fans having a

voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived

residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering

public policy issue." If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great.

Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose

the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out

a form.

_______

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson

Gandalf Grey wrote:

> Independents complain that "closed primaries"--Democratic primaries

> are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to

> Republicans--deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents

> choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to

> register as an independent.

Naw, no reason at all ....... unless you've had enough of the Tammany

Hall tactics of the demopublician party. Let's face it, if you're

tired of the overt criminal activity, the constant barrage of lies

and PAC-driven politics -- you don't have voice.

Ron Paul could probably turn this mess around but the corporate media

and political machine will never offer a level playing field......