E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Willful ignorance of the purpose of primary elections

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

It's unfortunate when the local newspaper's editorial board is so willfully ignorant of the purpose of primary elections. We saw this with the Herald-Times last week, when the editorial board complained that primary voters "cannot mix D's and R's when voting in May, as most voters do in the November general election." The editorial board further complained that the law "essentially makes it illegal to pick a ballot based on a desire to vote for the most contested races" and presents a "conundrum" to "politically independent" voters.

Hogwash.

Primaries are not and were never intended to be for the general public. Primaries are for the political parties to choose their candidates for the general election. Someone who is truly independent should not be choosing a candidate to represent the Republican or Democratic parties. That should be up to actual Republicans and Democrats. This is also why I have always been opposed to monkeywrenching schemes like "Operation Chaos" in 2008.

Indiana technically is a closed primary state, though that is unenforceable. People can literally flip from party to party every primary election, or vote in the opposite party's primary whenever they want to either nominate the most beatable opponent or the one closest to the views of the other party. Because enforcement is based on voter intent and reading minds is not possible, there is no way to prevent this. That is why the state legislature should reform the primary system to make it more difficult to cross over, perhaps by having voters actually register as Republicans or Democrats.

So what if the party faithful nominate two "extremists" who are unacceptable to true independents? Those independents can always gather signatures to have a candidate placed on the ballot, or even for a third party to contest the two major parties in the general election. You do not have to gather any signatures at all to run as a write-in candidate, though I can personally attest that running as a write-in candidate is a huge barrier to being elected. Nonetheless, the options are there. Leave the primaries to the parties.


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments: