There’s been a lot of talk across the Cheddarsphere – and even in the mainstream media – about the possibility of mischievous Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primary on September 14, in hopes of helping Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann and U.S. Senate candidate Dave Westlake win their races and give Democrats an easier path to victory in November. No doubt that talk has been spurred by blogs on the left side of the Cheddarsphere – for instance HERE, HERE, and HERE – but my hope is that those Democrats who might be considering crossing over to vote in the Republican primaries will fight the urge.
Here in Milwaukee County, we’ve got a lot of really hotly contested primary races (7th State Senate, 8th Assembly, Milwaukee County Sheriff), and there’s also contested races for the Democratic gubernatorial and Lt. Governor spots. Those races are too important for Democrats not to vote in simply so they can engage in some electoral shenanigans. While I’ll admit I was tempted – albeit briefly – to cast my vote in the Republican primaries, I’ll instead cast my ballot for a great group of Democratic candidates.
What if the R voters in the 7th Senate crossed over in large numbers to ensure a Plale primary win (which given the the amount of attention given Plale by the likes of Sykes and McIlheran doesn’t seem unreasonable). The Ds could mound a secret crossover write-in campaign for Larson on the REPUBLICAN ticket! Given the relative small pool of Rs in the 7th, and the Plale defectors, it shouldn’t be THAT difficult to game. Then come November, we’d have a conservative running as a D, and a liberal running as a R. Would be a lot easier if we had the old blanket primaries though.
Both political parties deserve this deviousness at the ballot box. Instant Runoff Voting would eliminate the need for primaries and the crossing over of voters. Problem is, it is “fair” and politicians don’t like fair. They like the current teeter-totter because it gives them a 50% chance of a win.
IRV would open the race fairly, even to independents and third-party candidates because it would eliminate the “wasted vote” syndrome. I dare say we’d have had a President Perot had IRV been in effect at that time. And even if you weren’t a Perot supported you’d have been happy with the fairness in the election.
See more at http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/05/09/instant-runoff-voting-it-is-time/
Instant runoff voting is a great idea.
I don’t disagree in general – but President Perot Jack? I do not think it means what you think it means if you believe that would’ve been the result.
Instant Runoff doesn’t – or shouldn’t take the place of partisan primaries or however the parties want to choose their candidates. As much as I hate that the two parties are so completely dominant, they should have every right to select their nominee however they see fit.
And crossover voting is unethical & immoral, just as it was when Rush was advocating it back in the 2008 primaries. While this seemed to be less of an issue with the old primary format, again it should be up to the parties themselves to determine their nominee. Personally, I don’t believe they should use regular voting facilities and equipment – or at the very least, should pay rental fees for them. If I were running DPW or RPW, I’d mail out ballots only to registered party members to ensure only actual party members voted to determine the candidate.
IRV doesn’t block the effects of a partisan runoff. Look at the link above. Walker and Neumann would be in it until November, but it also allows the voter to vote their choice if it happens to be, in order, Neumann-Barrett-Walker. And it would tend to avoid the negatives that have arisen in the Walker-Neumann race.
And as well, I think we should outlaw “parties” as being nothing more than illegal conspiracies, but I’m realistic to know that will never happen.
Well yes, it does. If a party wants to, it should be allowed to run only one candidate on the ballot. Could be they think one can get >50% right out of the box, but splitting the votes becomes unpredictable or whatever – the bottom line is, as I said, though I don’t like either party, they should be able to determine the candidate who runs in their name. This decision then, about who they support would have to come independent of the general election. IRV is a better way to run a general election. It is not and should not be a required replacement for primaries if the parties don’t want it.
The problem is the fundamental principle. The First Amendment’s free speech clause means idiots as jerks have a right to free speech too. In the same way, the right to peaceably assembly means things like parties and other political groups can sometimes be the downside of a critically important right.
Well, who is “the party?” Isn’t it the republicans as a whole? Or must they all be in favor of Walker because those on the inside decided such?
I was speaking in general terms – either R or D. And personally, I couldn’t care less how they come up with their candidates – primary election, smoke-filled room or drawn out of a hat. That’s their sandbox & I ain’t playing. But that also means I have no right to tell them how to decide.
I made a conscious decision quite awhile ago, to not associate myself with either of them because in practical terms, they’re interchangeable. I’ll vote for the candidate I think best with complete disregard for the letter after their name.
And to save the postage, I’ll reply to your other response in this one. Thanks for the info & the link – I just had time for a quick glance now, but look forward to reading it closer when I have a few minutes. When you said “ours” are you a member/affiliated with fairvote.org?
I am not a member, but I support the concept of IRV and the work they are doing on it. I work for nobody, and you can see my complete disclosure here: http://moneyedpoliticians.net/about/
I’d like to vote against both D’s and R’s, but pragmatically, under the current (warped) rules, I’d never make a difference. I’m generally voting for R’s, but not always. And this year it doesn’t look good.
And incidentally, Locke, it was not I that said “ours.” That was said by fairvote.org.
And this from fairvote.org:
There are different ways of applying IRV and different ways of upholding association rights — for example,in one approach the party could make endorsements that would show up on ballots, so a race might have a Democrat, Republican, Endorsed Democrat, Green and independent and Endorsed Republican. The candidates could identify their party of preference, but the parties could identify their candidate(s) of preference.
See a discussion of all this in this long paper of ours here:
http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/OpenPrimariesAnalysisAugust2010.pdf