Why are there open primaries? Why would any party allow non-members to select their nominee? When I was in high school, I had a poly sci teacher who would change his party affiliation in order to vote in a primary if he thought it would better benefit his view by throwing a wrench in the other party. That was his prerogative. At least he made the effort of joining the party (even if insincerely) to vote. Most people won't go to that effort which means such cross-party sabotage is limited in closed primaries. The situation can be particularly dire if one party picks a nominee before the other. If party A has chosen Andrew Anderson only 3 primaries into the season, then party A voters in the rest of the states have a lot of incentive to cross-parties and pick the weakest candidate of Party B. Even if that doesn't come to pass, an extended primary fight in party B is likely to benefit Andrew Anderson in the general election. Again, this isn't likely to be a problem in closed primaries but will definitely be so in open primaries.
There is the flipside. Perhaps there is benefit in an open primary in that it allows for testing the waters of the general electorate. Candidates who do well among the party faithful might prove incapable of getting votes outside that group, a certain path to defeat. Open primaries can sink a candidate who can't get broad support.
Then we have the order. Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack every 4 years? Ethanol has survived as long as it has only because candidates from each party promise to protect it in order to show well in the first caucus. Why not rotate among the states? Granted, the primaries and caucuses should continue to sample each region before jumping into big events like Super Tuesday. The current pattern is to start in the Midwest, go to New England, the South, and then the West. Any rotation strategy should keep that in mind. However, some states are too expensive to be first. Try running a shoestring campaign in New York, California, or Texas. Many candidates would be eliminated for having insufficient money. Sticking with relatively small states is probably best though some rotation should occur. That lack of rotation is why everything is so compressed today. Too many states were tired of finding the race was over before they had a vote.
I have written on this before in previous primary seasons. I suspect I will do so again 4 years hence. It may never change.
There is the flipside. Perhaps there is benefit in an open primary in that it allows for testing the waters of the general electorate. Candidates who do well among the party faithful might prove incapable of getting votes outside that group, a certain path to defeat. Open primaries can sink a candidate who can't get broad support.
Then we have the order. Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack every 4 years? Ethanol has survived as long as it has only because candidates from each party promise to protect it in order to show well in the first caucus. Why not rotate among the states? Granted, the primaries and caucuses should continue to sample each region before jumping into big events like Super Tuesday. The current pattern is to start in the Midwest, go to New England, the South, and then the West. Any rotation strategy should keep that in mind. However, some states are too expensive to be first. Try running a shoestring campaign in New York, California, or Texas. Many candidates would be eliminated for having insufficient money. Sticking with relatively small states is probably best though some rotation should occur. That lack of rotation is why everything is so compressed today. Too many states were tired of finding the race was over before they had a vote.
I have written on this before in previous primary seasons. I suspect I will do so again 4 years hence. It may never change.
No comments:
Post a Comment