COLUMN: INDEPENDENTS GO HOME
Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
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.
Twenty-three states now have so-called “open primaries.” Registered independents are allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. “What’s everybody talking about now? Independents,” Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford says. Huge numbers of Democratic primary voters aren’t Democrats at all: 20 percent in the Iowa caucuses, 44 percent in New Hampshire, 23 percent in South Carolina.
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.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
11 Comments.
Real simple math on this one, Ted.
We didn't try to unseat Joementum because he peddled 'bipartisanship'. We tried to unseat him because he peddled out-and-out Republicanism, working for Credit Card Companies, War Based On Lies, and Shitting on the Constitution.
We tried to unseat him because all he did all day was stroke Bush's ego and polish his knob.
Attempting to reach out the the moderate votes in the Republican constituency, as Obama does, is far different than Joe's blowjob a day toward the GOP powermongers.
But hey, laugh it up. Even us angry old lefties are seeing how irrelevant you've become now that you're flipflopping on the Democratic candidates.
Hey Ted,
As a former Democrat, now independent, I have to disagree with you on open primaries.
Still, the process needs some major reform. Particularly, we need to stop giving rinky-dink whitebread states like Iowa and New Hampshire so much say by allowing them to hold the first primaries. We need a national primary so everyone gets a voice.
While we're at it, lets abolish the electoral college. It's an elitist throwback to another time that's become a way of favoring the two major parties.
We need more independent voices, more independent and third party candidates.
Okay. That's my rant.
We didn't try to unseat Joementum because he peddled 'bipartisanship'. We tried to unseat him because he peddled out-and-out Republicanism, working for Credit Card Companies, War Based On Lies, and Shitting on the Constitution.
Is there a difference?
Bipartisanship = Republicans get whatever they want.
I would like to see Mr. Gerston cite a source when he says independents "tend to know less about the leading issues".
As an independent, I'm very afraid of the U.S. turning into a third world country. We've got:
1.) Wars of aggression
2.) No guaranteed due process
3.) Torture and gulags
4.) An unstable currency
None of these characteristics are compatible with a modern industrialized democracy. None of the major candidates seem to care. Ron Paul is the only one still in the race who is willing to raise these issues.
Independents can be very concerned about the major issues. Perhaps we just aren't informed about the issues the parties think we should care about. I, for one, couldn't care less about endangered species or the legal standing of a fetus.
Ron Paul is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is a white supremacist and has close ties to skinheads and Nazi's (the swastika bearing white boys in America, not the real deal). Please take the time to check out the tons of information about Mr. Paul's ties to racist rabble rousers before making idiotic statements about how Ron Paul is on your side. Unless you hate black folks, he ain't.
On another note, if you don't care about endangerd species, you are an idiot. Endangered species are the cannary in the mine, so to speak.
I'm a political scientist, and I agree about open primaries. They dilute the concept and necessity of political parties. The purpose of being an independent is to register non-acceptance of party values, and that is fine – but it also means you only get to vote in the general election. I am a Green, and I don't complain that I can't vote for corporate tools in the Democrats and Republicans any more than if I were an independent.
Ted,
I challenge that your assumption that people vote for bad candidates in the other party is as unfounded as your claim that open primaries result in better candidates and a better process. Both are baseless assertions.
I think that your position on open primaries is only a moderate attempt to work more effectively within a broken system, but I don't think going after the open primaries is a fix for anything. Choosing between extreme forms of leadership can lead to a country that oscillates violently and leads to far bigger problems. The larger issue is the two party system and the focus on packages of flawed issues rather than negotiating each issue to find the best solution.
That takes time and effort, it doesn't look like the Super Bowl, and it requires highly educated people. It also takes resources and money. It also doesn't elicit passion amongst the electorate. It's dull and tedious. But most importantly, Ted, it's not very democratic, because it only involves those with the expertise necessary to understand the issue and work with other people who do as well.
Simply put we don't exist in a society where the vast majority of individuals are educated to the point that they can understand this enough to create a system that works effectively. We live in an adolescent culture, where mature individuals are ridiculed and childish and petty ones flourish.
The fact that Karl Rove holds the status he does is a prime example.
So we're stuck with this.
Sometimes 'the best' is the enemy of 'the good.' Perhaps the best we can hope for is a charismatic leader who points us in the right direction and inspires us to do good deeds?
Kurt,
I disagree with your assertion that Ron Paul is racist. He's the only candidate who has even brought up the racist prison-industrial complex. He may have made some dumb statements a few years ago, but actions speak louder than words.
I realize what you are trying to say about endangered species, but you should be more careful with metaphors. It sounds like you're claiming canaries are endangered.
Or, how about we just do NO primaries, and have a full field of candidates, and instant-runoff voting in an election that's open to everybody!
Perhaps the best we can hope for is a charismatic leader who points us in the right direction and inspires us to do good deeds?
not Obama
Few people who understand American democracy argue that moderation is anything but antithetical. Independents I know are just misguided, well meaning people who do not follow politics at all. Fallacy of the golden mean. Wiki it.
I repeat: this is not Europe. We have a two-party, winner-take-all system. Not supporting the Kerry is equal to supporting Bush. Until we have proportional representation (PR), we have to accept this.
still, if you are a democrat who knows for sure how your electoral college guy is going to vote, you should vote green to send a message to the next Clinton (whehter it be Obama Clinton, or Hillary Clinton)