I might be sharing a bit of a folie à deux with Newsweek blogger Jonathan Alter on the idea that we need to change the way our election and primary system works. (Article) However, before I go there I must point out a few errors in his post and make a few corrections.
In his article he refers to the primary system that Washington uses for constitutional offices as an “open primary” this is not the correct term. The correct term is a “non-partisan blanket primary” aka. a top 2 primary. The primary difference being that in an open primary a voter is allowed to vote in a single party primary, you just pick which when you show up.(Illinois has this system) In some states that have open primaries, you can even vote in one or more party primaries. (Wisconsin has this system I believe) However in a non-partisan blanket primary, all the primary candidates are put on the same ballot. The two candidates that get the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, are then put on the general election ballot. Contrast all of this to the closed primary in which only registered party members are allowed to vote.
Now there are pros and cons to each of these systems. The arguments can get rather complex and even delve into game theory. The most basic problem with a non-partisan blanket primary can be shown very easily either when a third party is introduced into the equation or a district leans heavily one way or the other. Third parties tend to be shut out of the process, as the large voting blocks of the established parties will invariably end up with the top two counts in the primary. In districts with a heavy political bent, often the only candidates that will make it to the general election will be from that same political party.
There is also another problem that can arise regarding manipulation. Here political parties discourage participation by there own candidates (typically the more moderate of candidates) in order to assure they secure one of the top two positions. Imagine an evenly split electorate 50% liberal, 50% conservative where two conservatives are running and two liberals. Now imagine that the conservatives dissuade a third conservative candidate from running because of fears of dilution of the conservative base. At the same time they secretly support three more “liberal” candidates. It is easy to see how in this scenario the top two vote getters would both be conservatives and would therefore be the only choices available in the general election. Even in a district that is evenly split.
Because of all these problems, in my opinion, the non-partisan blanket primary is actually inferior to the imperfect open primary.
A a more democratic way to solve this problem is to do away with the primary system all together and move to instant run off elections. You would then allow anyone who can meet the criteria, (typically a given signature count and a modest fee) to get on to the general election ballot. Then the electorate votes in order of preference. The system has a lot of names, Instant-runoff voting (IRV), alternative voting, ranked choice voting, or preferential voting. I will not go into details there is a good article on wikipedia on the subject. The primary advantages of this type of system are that it eliminates the need for a first round primary (and the cost of operating it if paid for by the state), it allows third party candidates a greater voice, it dissuades negative campaigning and promotes the election of more moderate candidates across the board.
I will disagree with Jonathan Alter on just one point, moderates do not necessarily have better manners. They are just less likely to get a pat on the back for showing them in public.
