New West Idaho Politics: Guest Opinion
Closed Primaries Prevent Dirty Tricks
By Adam Graham, 6-16-07
Publisher’s note: This guest opinion is in response to state Senator Clint Stennet’s recent opinion about the Idaho GOP closing their primaries.
According to Senator Clint Stennett, your general political preferences and leanings are sacred and private information. Of course, anyone whose been involved in political campaigns knows that the chief goal of political campaigns is the identification of voters. In the last election, those opposed to the marriage Amendment boasted of their voter identification project. Both parties actively seek to invade voter’s “privacy” in order to run their campaigns, or are you going to tell me that Democratic phone banks were simply calling folks out of the yellow pages in the weeks before election day?
Perhaps most astonishing is Senator Stennett’s argument for why everybody should be able to vote in the Republican Primary:
Say you live in a legislative district where three Republicans are competing against each other for the same senate seat. One candidate, a moderate, has held the office for many years. She is being challenged by a ultra-conservative Republican and a liberal Republican. There are no other challengers in the race.
Under this scenario – one which is not uncommon in Idaho—the winner of the Republican primary election in May will effectively have won the general election in November.
I’ve followed politics for many years, but I must confess that this is the first time I’ve seen a political leader argue that his own ineptitude in candidate recruitment should be the basis for government policy. That Senator Stennett can’t get enough Senators elected to fill a Toyota Sequoia should not mean that the Republican nominee should be a Democrat-lite. Contrary to what some argue, Democrats are not out of power because of facist mechanations in the Republican Party, but because their ideology doesn’t play well outside of the North End of Boise or Sun Valley.
The greatest point that’s missed here is that Republicans can close the primary not because of a secret cabal, but because of a US Supreme Court ruling that says that open primary laws when forced on political parties violate the Constitutional rights of those parties. The purpose of the primary is not to allow all citizens to speak out on the candidates presented. That’s what the General Election is for. Rather, the primary allows the parties to choose the candidates who’ll represent them before the whole population.
It’s akin to choosing players for a baseball game. Imagine if, when the Boise Hawks open the season a week from now, it were decided that the GM of the Salem-Keizer Volcanoes had veto power over the Hawks’ entire roster for the series, would Boise Hawks fans trust that they’d be seeing the best team possible play? I wouldn’t, yet that’s the type of process Senator Stennett has defended.
Open primaries inheritently corrupt our voting process. In the last election, whether it was Bill Cope of Boise Weekly voting for Shelia Sorensen to insure the most liberal candidate wins, or Alan of Idablue urging support for Robert Vasquez in order to guarantee the weakest possible nominee against Larry Grant, the misuse of the vote for the purpose of sabotaging the true members of another party is wrong. A vote should reflect our values and beliefs, not some strategic gameplan.
Open primaries have led to people losing confidence in the election process. I witnessed this firsthand in 2002 in Montana’s Flathead County Commissioner’s race. The Mayor of Columbia Falls won the primary against the incumbent. When word of massive Democratic crossover leaked out, it left a bitter taste in the mouths of the incumbent’s supporters and led to the incumbent making a comeback bid as a write-in candidate. From everything I’ve heard since I’ve left Montana, the former Mayor has been a fine commissioner with a fairly conservative record. However, he had to overcome the taint of an open primary-fueled victory in order to achieve anything.
A closed primary would have added values for Idaho voters that are rarely discussed. With party registration, candidates could better target voters, which would mean a decrease in political junk mail sent to Idaho voters, as well as a reduction in the cost of campaigns due to the need to do less mailings and pay for less robocalls. Also, despite Democrat attempts to make this sound like a scary Republican scheme, the majority of states in the Union have closed primaries and require party registration. The security and privacy of people in those states is just as secure as that of your average Idahoan.
I believe the issue of closed v. open primaries is simple: we either have a serious two party system or we do not. Either we have people voting strictly based on their issues, beliefs, and views, or we open our system wide to legalized dirty tricks and political sabotage.
Adam Graham is an Ada County Republican Precinct Committeeman. He also blogs at Adam’s Web.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
The solution is to abolish primaries in favor of party nominating conventions.
Yes, nominating conventions would be nice, but I doubt those who are are howling about closed primaries would like the idea of the party holding private lists of who can participate and who can't.
Oh, and it's not just the North End, you might look around Ada county a bit more and find out that Conservatives are a lonely bunch there.
Actually, I'd like to encourage you to do more guest posts. Here are some topics that might be very enlightening to the people of Idaho that believe that Republicans have their best interests at heart:
1) Minimum wage
2) Feminism
3) Abortion Rights
4) Iraq War
5) Tax Refunds for the Rich
This could become a weekly sort of post and would really help the people understand you
Should Jill ask, I'd definitely give it some consideration. However, I wouldn't have columns just on those issues, but on what was going on.
God bless you.
Closed primaries for a closed mind. Congrats!
The baseball analogy is wrong, Adam. Both Bryan Fischer and yourself have used it repeatedly without ever realizing it makes no sense in a system of representation.
Then again, you aren't worried about everyone getting representation, are you? Thats why you're a fascist. You only want continued representation for your kind of people and you could care less what those that don't bow down to the ecumenical portion of society get.
But you've gotten your way, so you can sit back smugly knowing that Republican supremacy will continue so long as you can encourage fear of "liberals" and "taxes". You can sit back and claim that "liberals" want to kill babies, that they want to take everyone's money and give it to someone else, relentlessly. You can do so without fact, without data and without any remorse because the people of Idaho are trained to roll over for those that present a moral superiority. The church tells them to vote Republican, well thats good enough for them, right? What happens when they start to think for themselves on these topics, though? What happens when their pay is so bad and working conditions are so bad that they start to unionize again?
All of which could be avoided if all of the people were represented.
If you think Idaho will be too hopelessly Conservative, Oregon and Washington are only a few miles away. Vote with your feet if you're totally disatisfied. Vote with your vote in the general election for a candidate you believe in. Don't sabotage my party's primary and cancel out my vote.
We aren't in West Virginia. We are in Idaho and that is the topic. Change it around all you like, you won't prove a thing. But it is funny to watch you squirm.
And no, I don't think Idaho will be too helplessly conservative, but the change will be slow and painful. Rural areas that have no choice but to vote Republican will hold this state in thrall until such time as the growth forces them to a more moderate voting stance.
Until then, we have conservatives that believe George W. Bush talks to God and that Iraq is successful. We have conservatives believing that by making abortion illegal that it will just go away. We have conservatives that want to teach false science in our schools and then wonder why our kids won't get accepted into out-of-state universities.
And the liberals of Idaho will just sit back and say "told ya so".
You had your chance to move to a more centrist position and you squandered it because of a backlash against Bill Sali. And you want people to take you seriously?
This country is becoming more and more polarized, and I feel that there should be someon representing each point of view on the ballot.
Mr. Graham has it right.
And does it make you feel any better that I would argue the same thing against a Democratic closed primary, especially in Democratically controlled districts?
BTW, because of the potential for crossover voting in an open primary state like Idaho, the Democrat National Party refuses to count the VOTES in those states. That is why they have a CLOSED party caucus to pick a candidate for President.
"Since you choose to vote for a Democrat, you deserve what you get."
Which again stems from "I've got mine, screw you", the Republican motto.
And I'd like to see a simple SHRED of proof that crossover voting in this state has had even the most simplest of effects on a primary. Sorry, blog posts and insane conspiracy theories aside, you won't find that proof.
Ultraliberal Jay Kanta is now giving advice to the Idaho Republican Party!
As amazing as it sounds, it's true. Kanta - leftist Blogger - is dispensing election advice to the Idaho GOP.
He thinks the Idaho Republican Party should not have adopted a rule that would prevent Democrats, like him, from participating in a Republican primary.
Actually, Kanta and Bill Cope (from Boise Weekly), liberal writers both, are the twin poster boys for why the Idaho GOP is on the right track in closing its leadership selection process to Democrats.
Both have bragged about and encouraged Democrats to cross over and "help" Republicans pick their candidates. They and their ilk are the reasons the Idaho GOP have said enough is enough. No more liberal Democrats participating in choosing Idaho Republican leadership.
The Idaho Republican Party's state central committee recently voted to adopt a rule that would not allow those, like Jim Fisher, and other Democrats who want to defeat the GOP, a chance to be included in choosing Republican leaders.
What a novel approach.
It's such a strange notion that a majority of other states in the union have been doing just that for years. Registration by political party is a requirement in a majority of the states in the nation.
You might also be surprised to know that Idaho Democrats already hold a closed nominating process. Idaho Democrats participate in a closed caucus to choose delegates pledged to certain presidential candidates to the Democratic national convention and are not open to Republicans.
Imagine that. The Democratic National Committee rules prohibit recognition of any votes in states like Idaho that allow crossover voting. When you hear Democrats moaning about the new Idaho Republican rule, think duplicity.
Several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that said a state has no business dictating to a private political party how to choose its leaders. And the U.S. Supreme Court is right on target with that issue.
The Idaho Republican Party responded to that ruling at the June 2006 state convention by passing a platform position, a resolution and even a proposed rule regarding party registration and to prohibit non-Republicans from participating in the choosing of Republican leaders.
The Idaho Legislature followed up by introducing two bills regarding a party registration requirement. There was no vote taken on either bill even though members of the Legislature knew the Idaho Republican Party would formally adopt such a rule at the June meeting.
The Legislature had a chance to do the right thing, but failed. And Democrats like Fisher were leading the charge in opposition to the effort. They want to continue to have influence in the Republican leadership selection process.
A political party is best defined as people who join together with a common set of governing values and principles for the purpose of electing people to public office.
As the positions of a political party become known and accepted by larger groups, it becomes a franchise.
Just as you know what to expect when you obtain any franchised product, you should also know what to expect when you elect a Republican or a Democrat.
Members of the Idaho Republican Party have been disenfranchised for years. Does it not seem strange to periodically witness Republicans acting like Democrats? The Republican Party offers a franchise of less government regulation relying instead on the free market and the strength of the individual and therefore lower taxes.
Occasionally, some people run for public office as Republicans who are more interested in the accumulation of power than ascribing to Republican values of less government. These are the politicians who routinely ignore the Republican parties' platform and corresponding resolutions.
To allow Jay Kanta, Bill Cope and other Democrats the option to join in the selection of Republican leaders is to disenfranchise all Republicans.
That is why the U.S. Supreme Court said it is wrong. The freedom of association also includes the freedom to not associate. The natural consequences of a dilution of the Republican vote in a Republican Primary election are a gradual disconnect from the governing principles of the Republican Party.
How many University of Idaho football fans would appreciate the alumni association at Boise State University being allowed to participate in choosing the quarterback and starting lineup for the University of Idaho?
Republicans don't appreciate the likes of ultra leftist liberals like Jim Fisher, et. al, participating in the selection of our quarterback and starting lineup either.
---
Rod Beck is the former Republican majority leader in the Idaho State Senate.
And I am speaking out against state level closed primaries in Idaho and this shows my duplicity, how?
And I'm not crying and moaning for myself. I live in an area that swings back and forth from Republican to Democrat representation, giving my district a real sense of balance. A sense of balance that I have long mentioned as being necessary for a successful governance. Political power held in the hands of a single party results in a system that doesn't work, as can be seen from the last 8 years of horrible national policy that has resulted in over 100,000 innocent people dead.
Republican = Conservative
your duplicity is in claiming to be a liberal / Democrat and yet you want to participate in the Conservative / Republican party leadership selection process.
If you can't see that...I give up
Liberal doesn't equal Democrat, and Conservative doesn't equal Republican. There are shades of gray and unfortunately when you play partisan politics with peoples votes, essentially shutting them out of the process, you make the shades of gray less and less each time.
But that seems to be a voting trick for the Republican party. Shut down the voters, reduce their numbers and the R's come out as winners almost every time. Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona are all perfect examples of how reducing voter turnout, legally or illegally, increases the chances of a Republican win.
But "It's OK if You're a Republican."