Sunday, March 26, 2006
Open Versus Closed Primaries
Illinois has an open primary, but it is not a secret primary.
Voters must declare the party among whose candidates they wish to chose.
Party officials and candidates favor the system because it provides targets to contact in following primaries. They have a good indication of who will vote in their party’s primary from who did so in the past.
In Springfield, a Democratic Party insurgent candidate for state representative, narrowing beat the establishment favorite, probably because he put a referendum on the ballot asking whether people would rather have a secret open primary or a public open primary.
Surprise!
80% voted in favor of voter privacy in the insurgent-inspired referendum. (It took 5,000 petition signatures to get the question on the ballot.)
The insurgent won the election by 200 votes.
Bernie Schoenburg of Springfield’s State Journal-Register has the definitive column on the upset. Bernie calls it a “closed primary,” but it realty isn’t. Voters can switch from party to party from election to election.
Voters must declare the party among whose candidates they wish to chose.
Party officials and candidates favor the system because it provides targets to contact in following primaries. They have a good indication of who will vote in their party’s primary from who did so in the past.
In Springfield, a Democratic Party insurgent candidate for state representative, narrowing beat the establishment favorite, probably because he put a referendum on the ballot asking whether people would rather have a secret open primary or a public open primary.
Surprise!
80% voted in favor of voter privacy in the insurgent-inspired referendum. (It took 5,000 petition signatures to get the question on the ballot.)
The insurgent won the election by 200 votes.
Bernie Schoenburg of Springfield’s State Journal-Register has the definitive column on the upset. Bernie calls it a “closed primary,” but it realty isn’t. Voters can switch from party to party from election to election.
Comments:
<< Home
Cal,
Thank you for the link to the State Journal-Register concerning the 99th house district Democrat primary. This is an area which needs to be discussed and debated.
My personal preference for a primary/general election system is the one used by the state of Louisiana. For those not familiar with Louisiana, offices from Congress all the way down to the local parishes (counties), voters do not have to declare a party to cast a vote in a "primary" election.
A Louisiana primary election generally happens in the fall of the election year, either late September or early October. Candidates from both parties appear on the same ballot, and voters choose whomever they want to vote for. Voters have the freedom to choose a Republican for one office, say governor, and a Democrat for the office of parish president.
Votes are counted for the office, not within a political party. If no candidate gains a majority of the votes cast for that office, the top two votegetters, regardless of party, will have a runoff election in November between the two.
Please note -- in congressional races, the "primary" is the November general election day, and if a runoff is needed, it is in December.
I introduce the Louisiana primary system because it addresses many areas of the current primary election process in Illinois that I've never liked. The first is voter participation. Primary elections turnout has traditionally been low and is getting lower. In Illinois, primary elections are publicly funded, as mandated by the Illinois Election code concerning the nomination of candidates from established political parties.
The problem is the cost of running the primary elections comes from the taxpayers, and not the political parties. Therefore, the lower the turnout, the less benefit received from the taxpayers to fund the local elections. A Louisiana-style election, or even the "secret primary" election that was the topic of the Schoenberg column, would boost voter turnout, without the need for a school referendum to help boost turnout.
But something the "secret primary" would not address which Louisiana does is the current nomination process is a "winner-take-all". In states across the south, a party's nominee must win a majority of the primary vote to be declared a party's nominee. Look what happened in Illinois on March 21st.
The Republican nominee for governor, Judy Baar Topinka, won the Republican nomination by a plurality of the vote of only 38%. Jim Oberweis came in 2nd at 32%.
In southern states, the top two vote getters would have a runoff primary election 1 1/2 to 2 months after the initial primary. Would Topinka still win the nomination in a head-to-head with Oberweis?
While a primary runoff election would be costly to implement in Illinois, the Louisiana election system has a built-in runoff election. In the 1991 election for Louisiana governor (governors and state legislators are elected in odd-numbered years), there were 12 candidates for governor, including then-Governor Buddy Roemer.
The primary took place in October. With so many candidates, no one could possibly achieve a majority of the vote. The highest vote-getter received only 36% of the vote. The incumbent governor came in 3rd. The top two votegetters went into the runoff election, where Edwin Edwards won the election.
I hope these two points of increased voter participation and eliminating winner-take-all primaries generates a healthy discussion.
Sincerely,
Marc V. Avelar
Post a Comment
Thank you for the link to the State Journal-Register concerning the 99th house district Democrat primary. This is an area which needs to be discussed and debated.
My personal preference for a primary/general election system is the one used by the state of Louisiana. For those not familiar with Louisiana, offices from Congress all the way down to the local parishes (counties), voters do not have to declare a party to cast a vote in a "primary" election.
A Louisiana primary election generally happens in the fall of the election year, either late September or early October. Candidates from both parties appear on the same ballot, and voters choose whomever they want to vote for. Voters have the freedom to choose a Republican for one office, say governor, and a Democrat for the office of parish president.
Votes are counted for the office, not within a political party. If no candidate gains a majority of the votes cast for that office, the top two votegetters, regardless of party, will have a runoff election in November between the two.
Please note -- in congressional races, the "primary" is the November general election day, and if a runoff is needed, it is in December.
I introduce the Louisiana primary system because it addresses many areas of the current primary election process in Illinois that I've never liked. The first is voter participation. Primary elections turnout has traditionally been low and is getting lower. In Illinois, primary elections are publicly funded, as mandated by the Illinois Election code concerning the nomination of candidates from established political parties.
The problem is the cost of running the primary elections comes from the taxpayers, and not the political parties. Therefore, the lower the turnout, the less benefit received from the taxpayers to fund the local elections. A Louisiana-style election, or even the "secret primary" election that was the topic of the Schoenberg column, would boost voter turnout, without the need for a school referendum to help boost turnout.
But something the "secret primary" would not address which Louisiana does is the current nomination process is a "winner-take-all". In states across the south, a party's nominee must win a majority of the primary vote to be declared a party's nominee. Look what happened in Illinois on March 21st.
The Republican nominee for governor, Judy Baar Topinka, won the Republican nomination by a plurality of the vote of only 38%. Jim Oberweis came in 2nd at 32%.
In southern states, the top two vote getters would have a runoff primary election 1 1/2 to 2 months after the initial primary. Would Topinka still win the nomination in a head-to-head with Oberweis?
While a primary runoff election would be costly to implement in Illinois, the Louisiana election system has a built-in runoff election. In the 1991 election for Louisiana governor (governors and state legislators are elected in odd-numbered years), there were 12 candidates for governor, including then-Governor Buddy Roemer.
The primary took place in October. With so many candidates, no one could possibly achieve a majority of the vote. The highest vote-getter received only 36% of the vote. The incumbent governor came in 3rd. The top two votegetters went into the runoff election, where Edwin Edwards won the election.
I hope these two points of increased voter participation and eliminating winner-take-all primaries generates a healthy discussion.
Sincerely,
Marc V. Avelar
<< Home
