I didn’t say “fixed†because, at least here in Chicago, that means something different. Okay, I’ll bite. Will the reforms proposed by Mark Penn at RealClearPolitics reform primary election:
To fix these problems we need to take some urgent steps. First, we need to shine light on this low participation and information as a problem. Second, we should deny tax deductibility status to nonprofits that are carrying out one-party agendas and encourage the growth of nonprofits that want high voter participation in all elections by all voters. Third, we need to set three or four regional primary days in which groups of states all hold their primaries at the same time to cut down on all the confusion of 20 or more possible dates. Further complicating this are Democratic campaigns to meddle with the primary process by deliberately providing tens of millions of dollars to extreme candidates they oppose and hope will be easier to defeat in the general election. Though unlikely to be banned outright, this practice further undermines the primary process, and hopefully the parties will agree to end it in the name of a fair democracy.
I don’t think they’ll do a darned thing.
I’ll propose a different slate of reforms:
- Abolish primaries. Back to the proverbial “smoke-filled roomâ€!
- Make voting in primaries compulsory with stiff fines for not voting and enforce it. I only know of three countries in which that’s the case: Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg. I can’t imagine that happening here.
- Render anyone who fails to vote in the primary ineligible to vote in the general election.
I always vote in the primaries. Here they are the only election that matters. The candidate for whom I cast my vote in the primary almost never gets the nomination.
I honestly don’t believe that primaries can be cured.
It would be best to abolish primaries. Once upon a time, in living memory, most states didn’t have them. Moreover, many states had the “unit rule,” a la California, in which all the State’s votes go to one person.
As to smoke-filled rooms and grizzled old pols, they made better choices than do primaries. The old pols wanted people who would attract the most votes, and play the patronage games. They generally chose centrists and rejected radicals. They gave us both Roosevelts, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, a pretty good run. The modern primaries are controlled by the radicals in each party, and they offer us lunatics, like Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and the senile pedophile Biden, our very own Nero.
The radicals know this, and they will not allow the primaries to go away. Primaries give them control.
PS. Some of my relatives live in a New England Towns, which is a specific kind of local government. In a Town, there are periodic town meetings, which are actually legislatures. The meeting can pass ordinances, make and approve budgets, allocate funds, set taxes, and appoint town officials. They also control the schools, because everywhere in New England the public school is a department of the city or town.
(My sister cannot understand how a school district can be an independent polity, with taxing powers and separate elections. The fact that my daughter lives in Columbus, has a Gahanna mail address, and is in the Westerville School District is incomprehensible to her. It seems pretty nonsensical to me, too.)
The important point is that all of this power resides in the people who actually show up. If you blow off the meeting, you have no vote. My relatives know this, and they make a determined effort to attend the meetings. Their attitude to the residents who don’t attend is, Screw you. You knew there was a meeting, and you were too lazy to attend.
Only 10% of NYC’s residents vote for mayor and city council. I bet it’s the same in Chicago. Otherwise where did that mutant frog (Groot) come from? In Ohio, off-year (non-presidential) elections draw only about one-fourth of the electorate.
My relatives would to those non-voters, Screw you, too.
Voter turnout was 33% in the last Chicago mayoral election. I attribute low turnout to one or both of the following factors:
1. Despair
2. Over-registration. People who will never vote are being registered.
Mayor Lightfoot was elected because the alternative was Toni Preckwinkle. I didn’t vote for either of them in the first round. The candidate for whom I voted was also voted for by a plurality of black voters.
I like all 4 of Mark Penn’s suggestions, especially the one consolidating state primaries into 3-4 groupings, rather than having them spread out over many months. The election meddling of one party into another’s candidate selection, by funding weaker candidates to run against, is another manipulative gambit that, IMO, discourages people from voting.
While we’ll discussing election trivia, I might suggest ways to improve general elections, as well:
1) Voter ID in all states, along with a routine updating of all voter roles.
2) No universal mail in voting or ballot harvesting. Must request a ballot first to mail one in, with a reasonable signature verification.
3) Paper ballots. Chuck all machines.
4) Poll watchers must have equal representation from political parties having candidates in the election.
5) Early voting should be scaled back to 1-2 weeks. Same day voter registration disallowed.
Why do I have to waste my time getting voter ID? There is no proven fraud of the kind that would be stopped by voter fraud. We have actual real problems in the country and people shouldn’t have to waste their time on fantasy problems.
The experience with universal mail in voting out west is very positive. I have missed voting a few times because of emergencies that kept me at work. Mail in that was made easy would have avoided that. An alternative would have been to have extended time before the official date.
I do like the idea of grouping the primaries. Could help reduce the influence of the early states.
Steve
“Mayor Lightfoot was elected because the alternative was Toni Preckwinkle.”
I confess I’m not particularly familiar with Preckwinkle. Was she really materially worse than Lightfoot?
For one thing she was running on a platform of raising property taxes. She lost every ward including her home ward.
“She lost every ward including her home ward.”
Must have been all those Chicago Republicans. All they care about is reducing taxes………
Everyone who owns a home or rents cares about property taxes.
Ah. I get it. So when I see something like this:
“I think the difference is that Democrats have largely made at least some attempt to pay for their spending absent recession. ”
It really should be taxes on thee, but not for me.
Maybe the standard Democrat pitch should be “vote for me and I’ll give you goodies, and have your neighbor pay for it. But rest assured, no taxes on you, dear prospective voter.” Come to think of it………..that is the pitch.
At this point, I think we are stuck with primaries. People like the illusion of “democracy” more than “smoke filled rooms” that reek of corruption, even though they likely produce better candidates in national elections (local elections is another story).
So I would like to see primaries transform into more of a preliminary general election. The primary would be open and each party could only run a single candidate. Then the top 2-4 candidates would advance to the general election ballot.
I think the key is that state governments need to stop subsidizing partisan primaries. If political parties want to use government election systems to choose their candidate, then they should pay to cover all the costs. And then that candidate can run in the open preliminary/primary election to compete for a spot on the general election ballot.
“It really should be taxes on thee, but not for me.”
Have to make up for the tax cuts for me but not for thee.
Steve