Against Universal Open Primaries
A quick note on the controversy about the DNC. It's an issue I hope to return to after I've done some reading, but I want to address one separate issue that is likely to come up. For purposes of this post I will frame my argument in terms of the 2016 primary, which is admittedly somewhat confusing, but I think shows why people have come down where they have on this issue.
States have different rules about who can vote in party primaries. Although we use the terms "closed" and "open," you should really think of these rules as forming a continuum. At one end, "open" states allow anyone to vote in party primaries, subject only to a requirement that you can't vote in more than one. At the other end of the spectrum, "closed" states permit only registered party members to vote in the primaries, with a very early deadline for switching party registration (New York is famous for its very early deadline). In between would be states that only let registered party members vote, but that make it easy to switch parties very soon before the primary is held. So for instance, imagine a state that requires you to be a member of a party to vote in its primary, but permits you to switch parties same-day by simply checking a box on your primary ballot. That is functionally an "open" state even though formally it runs "closed" primaries. A state that allows party-switching a week before the primaries is significantly more "closed" because most voters can't be bothered to do that, but that is still more open that a state with a several-month period before a party change becomes effective.
Now it's not clear in the abstract who benefits from relatively closed vs. relatively open primaries. On one hand, Sanders often got a lot of votes in closed primary red states from voters who would never vote Democratic in the general. The reason is that there has been a shift in party identification, so that lots of Republican voters are "stranded" with Democratic registration. They wanted to vote for Trump, but they lived in closed primary states and hadn't bothered to change their registration, so they had to choose between Clinton and Sanders. They chose Sanders for a variety of reasons, but presumably most of the time they simply wanted Trump to face the weakest possible opponent in the general election. (Whether they estimated correctly is a discussion for another time.)
On the other hand, closed primaries in blue states often prevented Sanders supporters (who are often not registered Democrats, and who often don't vote at all) from voting in the Democratic primary. This was cited by Sanders supporters as a significant contributor to his loss. By way of example, Clinton trounced Sanders in New York because she was very popular with Democratic voters.
On the third hand, Trump was obviously eager to face Sanders instead of Clinton, or at least to make it a close and costly primary. It is not at all difficult to imagine a situation in which Republican voters, taking advantage of an open primary, choose to vote for the weaker Democratic candidate. In fact you can even imagine a situation in which, if all primaries are wide open, both parties nominate conservative Republicans as a result of clever maneuvering by the GOP. This is admittedly far-fetched, but I think it is much less far-fetched that the Republicans might succeed in tipping the nomination to a weak candidate.
I worry that Sanders fans welcome this possibility. Many of them actively despise the Democratic Party and want its politicians to lose office. They might welcome Trump voters into the Democratic primaries as a way of destroying the party. Even Sanders supporters who are broadly supportive of the Democratic Party and its policy goals may not be able to resist the temptation of getting a boost from Trump voters. They will persuade themselves against all evidence that Sanders is getting support from Republicans because they actually agree with him and might vote for him in the fall, when in fact they are ardent Trump fans intentionally sabotaging the Democratic primary.
This could theoretically work the other way as well. And in fact something resembling it happened in the 2014 Republican primary in Mississippi in for Thad Cochran's U.S. Senate seat. Cochran was challenged by Chris McDaniel, a complete asshole. Democrats voted in the runoff election to keep the seat in Cochran's hands. (It was inevitable that the winner of the Republican primary would win the seat.) Now this is a little different, because the Democrats were engaged in asshole-avoidance, not sabotage. But it's not hard to imagine the opposite happening, particularly if there is a really wacky conservative challenging a strong establishment Republican in a swing state.
Anyway long story short, the DNC may very well need to be reformed, but I would not support universal open primaries as a "reform" measure. Many Sanders supporters want this for the wrong reason, and a party shouldn't make it legal and feasible for the other party to destroy it.
States have different rules about who can vote in party primaries. Although we use the terms "closed" and "open," you should really think of these rules as forming a continuum. At one end, "open" states allow anyone to vote in party primaries, subject only to a requirement that you can't vote in more than one. At the other end of the spectrum, "closed" states permit only registered party members to vote in the primaries, with a very early deadline for switching party registration (New York is famous for its very early deadline). In between would be states that only let registered party members vote, but that make it easy to switch parties very soon before the primary is held. So for instance, imagine a state that requires you to be a member of a party to vote in its primary, but permits you to switch parties same-day by simply checking a box on your primary ballot. That is functionally an "open" state even though formally it runs "closed" primaries. A state that allows party-switching a week before the primaries is significantly more "closed" because most voters can't be bothered to do that, but that is still more open that a state with a several-month period before a party change becomes effective.
Now it's not clear in the abstract who benefits from relatively closed vs. relatively open primaries. On one hand, Sanders often got a lot of votes in closed primary red states from voters who would never vote Democratic in the general. The reason is that there has been a shift in party identification, so that lots of Republican voters are "stranded" with Democratic registration. They wanted to vote for Trump, but they lived in closed primary states and hadn't bothered to change their registration, so they had to choose between Clinton and Sanders. They chose Sanders for a variety of reasons, but presumably most of the time they simply wanted Trump to face the weakest possible opponent in the general election. (Whether they estimated correctly is a discussion for another time.)
On the other hand, closed primaries in blue states often prevented Sanders supporters (who are often not registered Democrats, and who often don't vote at all) from voting in the Democratic primary. This was cited by Sanders supporters as a significant contributor to his loss. By way of example, Clinton trounced Sanders in New York because she was very popular with Democratic voters.
On the third hand, Trump was obviously eager to face Sanders instead of Clinton, or at least to make it a close and costly primary. It is not at all difficult to imagine a situation in which Republican voters, taking advantage of an open primary, choose to vote for the weaker Democratic candidate. In fact you can even imagine a situation in which, if all primaries are wide open, both parties nominate conservative Republicans as a result of clever maneuvering by the GOP. This is admittedly far-fetched, but I think it is much less far-fetched that the Republicans might succeed in tipping the nomination to a weak candidate.
I worry that Sanders fans welcome this possibility. Many of them actively despise the Democratic Party and want its politicians to lose office. They might welcome Trump voters into the Democratic primaries as a way of destroying the party. Even Sanders supporters who are broadly supportive of the Democratic Party and its policy goals may not be able to resist the temptation of getting a boost from Trump voters. They will persuade themselves against all evidence that Sanders is getting support from Republicans because they actually agree with him and might vote for him in the fall, when in fact they are ardent Trump fans intentionally sabotaging the Democratic primary.
This could theoretically work the other way as well. And in fact something resembling it happened in the 2014 Republican primary in Mississippi in for Thad Cochran's U.S. Senate seat. Cochran was challenged by Chris McDaniel, a complete asshole. Democrats voted in the runoff election to keep the seat in Cochran's hands. (It was inevitable that the winner of the Republican primary would win the seat.) Now this is a little different, because the Democrats were engaged in asshole-avoidance, not sabotage. But it's not hard to imagine the opposite happening, particularly if there is a really wacky conservative challenging a strong establishment Republican in a swing state.
Anyway long story short, the DNC may very well need to be reformed, but I would not support universal open primaries as a "reform" measure. Many Sanders supporters want this for the wrong reason, and a party shouldn't make it legal and feasible for the other party to destroy it.
posted by James | 12:29 PM
1 Comments:
Open primaries maybe not, but unified primaries heck yeah
Post a Comment
<< Home