Primary Colors

I seldom vote in primaries because I find it distasteful to be forced to pledge allegiance to a body for which I feel no particular fidelity. When it comes to the almighty two party political system, I am a devote agnostic and do not worship false idols, be they elephants and a donkeys. But when the opportunity arose this cycle to loosen the Democratic and Republican grip on the electoral process, I heeded the call.

I had been led to believe that I could vote for the open primary advisory referendum without requesting a party ballot. I felt somewhat duped when told that I did have to state a party preference, but was free to vote only on the referendum question. My objection to the current system isn’t that I have to vote for people; if that were the case I would stay home during the general elections as well. So I was forced to perform a mental coin flip to decide which party’s precinct committee person gets to offer me a ride to the polling place next November, and consequently, determine whether I will be arriving in a gas-guzzling, freedom-loving SUV or a rice-subsidizing, socially-conscious Prius.

The SJ-R ran an editorial addressing the parties’ self-serving desire to keep the current system in place. The party organizers like receiving a listing of likely voters from the county that they can use to target future campaign efforts. The editorial wisely pointed out that the purpose of a publicly-funded election isn’t to feed the needs of the party machinery, and as such, theirs isn’t a worthy argument against open primaries.

Even more galling, however, is the reason the parties’ give for opposing the alternative. They believe that open primaries would allow for some unscrupulous voting tactics that they would have no choice but engage in because, well, that is their nature.

Most of you are probably familiar with the scenario that they claim would befall the pristine state of elections as they exist today.

Using the latest primary as an example, Blagojevich loyalists, knowing that their man was assured of the Democratic nomination, could jury-rig the election by voting for the conservative Oberweiss, a candidate that they presume would be easier to defeat in November than the more moderate Topinka. Of course they could have done that under the current system, but that would have meant that dyed-in-blue Democrats (those most likely to have gone along with such a ruse) would have suffered the indignity of having their names appear on a Republican roster, a fate they may feel is worse than being mistakenly listed on the sex offender registry.

I find it crass when people argue a against a new law by contending that it will only force the people whose behavior the law is targeting, to break a different law or otherwise act unethically. The licensed beverage folks tried this tactic when they told us that a smoking ban in bars would force smokers to congregate outside our homes, where they would litter their butts in our yard and wake us with their hacking. And now the Democrats and Republicans are telling us that they can’t be responsible for their actions if we don’t bow to their desires that every person entering a polling place be branded with one of their marks.

Even if the open primary is instituted, as proposed, it would still stifle the truly independent voter because you could still only vote for one party’s candidates.

Why can’t I vote for Candidate (D) in one race and Candidate (R) in another, if that is my preference? Why are the party bosses fearful of a voter who wields a discriminate stylus* in the voting booth? Is it because that such freedom might lead to the emergence of a viable third party, or no-party? Is it because the present system allows them to gerrymander and protect their incumbents? No wonder more people don't vote.

*Although I am a progressive when it comes to improving voting technology, “wielding the stylus” clearly lacks the poetry of “pulling the lever” and for that reason alone voting will probably never be as physically satisfying as it was in an earlier time.