Open Primaries

Today, Smerconish had this survey question:  "Should the 45% of Americans who self ID as political Independents be able to vote in party primaries?

I commented that his question assumed a false premise.  I have been a lifelong independent voter, but I have voted in a Presidential primary each election.  Nothing in KS has precluded me from voting.  I simply decide which primary interests me most, then register for that party.  That works fine.

I strongly agree with Smerconish that we have a problem because elections are settled in primaries where extremists dominate the vote.  We could reduce this problem as follows:

1.        Find a way to stem what I think is the worst gerrymandering: the parties agreeing on safe districts for each other.  How do we curb this?

2.        We need political, religious, and educational leadership who promote character, sincere discussion and patriotism.

3.        Implement Ranked-Choice Voting, which encourages people to vote for the candidate of their choice (even if they think that candidate will lose), selecting their preferred major candidate lower on their slate.   RCV will encourage more candidates.  It also may encourage candidates to want to be listed second on ballots of voters who are not their core supporters, which should discourage voters in primaries from selecting extremist candidates.

I’m “open” (pun intended) to discussion on open primaries.  There are a variety of ways they can work.  But groups of people with common ideas should be able to get together and select a candidate who reflects their preferences.  Such “freedom of association” is protected by our Constitution. 

Open primaries seem likely to thwart such efforts.  They generally throw all candidates into one pot and allow only the top two vote-getters to advance to the main election. 

·        That seems to make it hard for groups to get together and select and support a main election candidate to promote their ideas, even if they would qualify under traditional rules. 

·        The more candidates a party has in an Open Primary, the lower its chances of having a candidate in the final election.  I'm concerned that Open Primaries will encourage “closed door” deals ahead of the primary to reduce the number of candidates.

Some proponents of open primaries claim there is no evidence of problems I envision.  However, I think such problems have already occurred, to a small degree.  Moving to open primaries would make that much more common.

We have seen major (and, unfortunately, successful) interference in party primaries.  Democrats, while claiming to fear right-wing extremist candidates, spent $51.5 million in 2022 to interfere in Republican primaries in 12 states supporting extremist Republicans who they thought would be easier to beat.  Such interference led to more extreme candidates, not more moderate candidates.  Would open primaries make such interference easier and broader?

The rights of the following groups to associate and select and support a candidate should not be abridged.

•      People who favor trans athletes competing as their chosen gender
•      People who want to restrict athletes to compete in their birth gender
•      Pro-life voters
•      Pro-choice voters
•      Isolationists
•      Internationalists
•      Free trade advocates or tariff supporters
•      Groups with cross-sectional preferences, such as isolationists who support free trade

·        How does an “open primary” system protect the rights of people to band together to select and support a candidate?

The current KS system already allows independents to register in any party to vote in a primary. Why am I wrong to oppose Open Primaries?