Some argue “open primaries,” where independents can choose to vote in one of the two major parties’ primary election, will ensure more moderate candidates being chosen. But the opposite is more likely. This is just an invitation to sabotage an opposing party’s primary.
One common justification for open primaries is that those not registered to the two major parties are denied their right to vote. That’s misleading. The real election is in November, and everyone can vote then.
Primary elections were introduced at the beginning of the 20th century as an enlightened reform giving rank-and-file party voters the right to choose their party’s candidates instead of party elites choosing in so-called “smoke-filled rooms.”
Another reason people criticize our closed primary system is because taxpayer money is being spent to benefit only a segment of the population — registered Democrats and Republicans. But we do that all the time with taxpayers funding student loans, schools, hospitals and assistance to the needy and elderly.
If we really want to give local voters more say, why not limit outside money coming into local elections? During the past decade, outsiders have heavily funded local campaigns for district attorney, state legislator, county executive and Congress which in many cases changed the outcome. Why should outsiders decide who gets elected in our hometown?
The closed primary system is not broken, so we don’t need to fix it.
Dave Majernik
Plum