Let the parties control their own primaries

There is less than a month until the primary election here in the state of Alaska. If history is any indication we will see about a 20-25% turnout on August 24^th.  Nobody seems to care to vote in these elections; however, if you try to reform the primary elections, everybody suddenly has an opinion. It is time to rethink how we handle the manner in which the parties choose their candidates.

Generally it would not be considered reasonable for outsiders to vote in elections for union board members, utility co-op board members, and home owners association board members; however, when it comes to the parties choosing the candidates that will carry their banner in the general elections, people become irate when those elections are closed to the members outside of that party.

Opponents would argue that the union board, utility co-op board and home owner’s association board are not government entities so that comparison is invalid. Quite to the contrary, those boards wield enormous power, being able to raise and lower rates on utilities, foreclose for non-payment of dues create rules and regulations and other actions that can have a serious impact on people’s lives.

Statewide, Alaskans have seen a fairly good turnout in the general elections. When there is a gubernatorial race we have seen a voter turnout of 60% or higher, without a gubernatorial race the turnout has still been consistently over 50%. Other states around the country generally peak below 50% and are seeing much lower turnout for their elections. However, in primary elections, Alaska peaked at 39% which likely was due to the excitement over Sarah Palin’s candidacy. Generally we see numbers in the low 30’s and even the low 20’s or teens.

Primary elections should simply be a mechanism for the parties to choose their candidates for the upcoming election. However, since government has taken up the task of administering these elections, the public has perceived them as something much more than what they are. The participation levels, however, are so low that to call this a participatory democracy when discussing primary elections is quite frankly – a joke.

Opponents of what they refer to as a “closed primary” claim that everybody should have the right to vote, even in an election that is geared towards allowing the parties to choose their candidates for the general election. They claim that the primary election is an election no different than the general election in terms of who should be allowed to vote. They point to primary races that will lead to a candidate running unopposed in the general election as a method of electing people to public office.

The truth is primary elections do not elect anybody to public office; they merely serve as a method to choose two candidates from the two parties to pit head to head in the general election. While it is true that candidates from one party may be running unopposed in the general, but not in the primary, the general election is still the mechanism that elects that candidate in public office. The fact that there is no contender in the general election is simply a failure of the opposing party.

It is time to empower the parties to choose their own candidates for statewide elections. The change that is needed is not simply closing the primaries to the members of the parties, but removing government from the process almost completely. Obviously, the division of elections will have to be involved in the process, but the party elections should be paid for and administered by the specific parties themselves.

This would accomplish a number of goals. With the parties running the elections, people will be more apt to ally themselves with a political party, which will make the parties stronger. In turn, the stronger parties can help to encourage more participation amongst their ranks. This new strong party system will encourage people to find a party that best suits their own ideology, which in turn, may very well strengthen many of the smaller political parties as well as the two large parties.

The more government gets involved with something, generally, the worse it becomes. There is no difference in the primary elections. If the parties were to run the primary elections and the members of the parties knew that they would be the ones to choose their candidates for the general election, we could significantly increase voter participation in the primary election and that enthusiasm would likely carry over to the general election and increase voter participation.

Our election system in this country is broken, there is no doubt. On a state level, we can effect change. While keeping governmental restrictions in place to ensure that federal and state election laws and protections are safeguarded, we can let the parties run their own elections, and pay the costs of the election. If the process increases voter turnout and strengthens the party system, which will in turn increase voter participation it will enhance our democracy rather than weaken it.