Former mayoral candidate Jim Walden wants open primaries. So does former Mayor Mike Bloomberg, CNN commentator Michael Smerconish, and countless other notable people. Why? Since fewer than 10% of the public votes in the primaries, all too often the choices in the general election aren’t even close to representing the best interests of a majority of voters.
Open primaries may encourage more people to vote resulting in better candidates for the general election. Those are extremely enviable objectives, objectives that are essential for a working democracy.
But since there are many forms of open primaries, what form will work best for New York? If proponents want “non-partisan blanket primaries” (open primaries with candidates of both parties running at the same time) like California’s “jungle primary,” or primaries where members of one party can vote in the primary of another party, they might actually make things worse.
First, in a jungle primary, if the top two vote getters are from the same party, the other party is not represented at all. Second, letting voters cross party lines might distort one party’s choice, giving the nod to someone not only not representative of a party’s platform but also with a lower chance of winning the general. It weakens the party structure.
Like our Founding Fathers, I’m not wild about political parties, but they make a theoretical democracy functional. I believe we need competition between two parties, and that a party’s nominee should represent a majority of that party.
One problem with current primaries is that you have to be a party member to vote in a primary, causing two issues. First, few party members actually vote in the primaries, and the ones who do, are those often motivated by grievance, not rational policy analysis. Second, as mentioned, current primaries leave out a huge proportion of the population, independents, from the critical front end of the election process.
Representative government works best when those elected truly represent the majority of the public, not just registered party members.
If more people voting means better candidates, how do we get more people to vote in the primaries? Here are my ideas.
First, as Walton suggests, open the primaries to independents. How should that be done? Enable registered independents to vote in primaries by setting up a process in which they can indicate officially, no less than one month before the primary, that they wish to vote in a particular party’s primary. They cannot be registered with any other party. Perhaps add a requirement that they have to have been a registered independent since before the last election to minimize “gaming” the system.
Second, even with that, the problem of a small percentage of a party’s members voting in the primary may persist. To increase participation, pass a regulation that if less than a substantial percentage, perhaps 30% or more, of party members voted in their primary, the party’s nominee would be listed on the general election ballot with an asterisk, or, if less than 10%, may not be listed at all. In that way the party will be maximally incentivized to get their members to vote and to find candidates that are more appealing.
Third, combine the two ideas by allowing the independent votes to be counted toward the minimum percentage.
I’m so old I can remember when someone had to be the most responsible, most respectable, and most able leader to get elected. Now it’s often pure theater. Getting more people involved improves the chances of getting more candidates who represent the best interests of our democracy.
Riccio is a former NYC DOT commissioner and currently teaches at NYU’s Stern School of Business.