« Roundup | Main | Turning Point? »

November 19, 2004

Some primary thoughts

This year, 56,413 Georgians voted in the Republican primary (in July) that had voted only in Democratic primaries since 1998. 19,922 voted in the Democratic primary after previously only voting in Republican primaries. Not the best trend in the world!

Of first time primary voters (or their first primary since '98), Democrats had a slight edge. 143,114 to 139,381. I guess that's good news. I've been thinking a lot about open primaries in the state, or maybe having a separate ballot for state and local races. Many jurisdictions, thanks to non-partisan elections, do have a defacto separate primary for state and local races, so that probably isn't that practical of a concern.

But an open primary would allow each primary voter to choose the candidate of his or her choice in each race individually. For example, you could vote for a Democratic candidate in the governor's race and then a Republican candidate in the Secretary of State race, back to a Democrat in the Sherrif's race and then your neighbor, running as a Republican, for county commissioner.

The general idea behind the open primary is that it would encourage moderation. Most voters, even primary voters, aren't hyper-partisans. I doubt there would be that much room for mischief. In the Presidential Primary this year, 58,768 people that voted in the Republican non-Presidential primary in 2000 voted in the Democratic presidential primary. Nearly 107,000 people that voted D in March voted R this past July.

Al Sharpton got 39,000 votes. A lot of people (mainly Republican pundits) thought that mischievous Republicans would try to help Sharpton win Democratic primaries by crossing over or re-registering as Democrats. In both Forsyth and Cherokee counties he got less than 6%, his statewide average was 6.2%. So I don't think there are that many faithless actors out there to really mess with the results.

So are open primaries a good idea or not? On the state level, I don't really think Democrats have an extremist problem (that can be cured) with an open primary. Republicans, on the other hand, may be interested in the idea. After all, they'd much rather have a guy like Bobby Franklin or Max Burns lose in the Republican primary than the general election. Something to mull over.

Posted by Chris at November 19, 2004 02:47 PM

Comments

Hi, Chris. Glad to see you back. An open primary is a very interesting idea. I'm just too tired tonight to write about it. I'll try to join the debate tommorow.

Posted by: tings [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 19, 2004 10:01 PM

First of all, where were the D to R crossover votes? If they were outside the suburbs yall got yourselves a problem, but if a even a significant plurality of these were in the suburbs I wouldn't worry; a lot of those voters wanted Isakson in office instead of the two wingers he was against, and knew that the D field was very, very bad (though W. Cliff did have some nice food at his free buffet)

Secondly, semiclosed primaries, like we have now, probably encourage moderation anyway, especially in districts as gerrymandered as GA. In a noncompetitive Congressional race, many people will cross and vote for a candidate in the party who seems more in line with their beliefs (Majette McKinney race). Don't you think they'd probably vote up and down ballot for similar types of people?

I don't have any data for any of this, so spank me if I'm wrong.

I'm really just opposed to the state-sponsored primary system in general, and also with popular voting for candidates. If candidates were still selected in smoke-filled rooms, I think you'd see a lot more moderation than you do today.

Posted by: LeftTheCapitol [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 20, 2004 04:00 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?