To be honest, I am severely disappointed in the argument of this article.  I expect a very high level of quality in FlashReport, and this was way below par.

First, to quote James Madison in support for political parties is like quoting Thomas Hobbes in support of democracy or Karl Marx in support of Big Business.  James Madison was notoriously anti-faction as expressed in Federalist No. 10 (link to Wiki of Federalist No. 10), and political parties perhaps represent the most extreme form of factioning.  So for future arguments in favor of political parties, avoid citing Madison as a resource.

Second, closed primaries have led to extreme polarization in the CA legislature.  It's well-known that primary candidates must appeal to their base in order to win in a primary.  Since the 1960s, the CA legislature has become more and more polarized.  In fact, it is now incredibly rare for a candidate to break party lines in any major vote.  If they do, they're head gets placed promptly on a stick and the recall cries crescendo.

Since most voters identify themselves as moderates, the idea that candidates must be strictly partisan does not seem right.  In effect, the candidates are only truly representing a small minority of voters who identify themselves as strongly liberal or strongly conservative.  Shouldn't our representatives be representative of the majority of the district?  Open primaries allow for this... potentially.

For most districts, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange County come to mind, candidates will still need to out-liberal and out-conservative one another.  Yet for most of the districts, candidates must move toward the middle in an attempt to attract the most voters- moderates.  This could lead to very frustrating legislative effects for strong partisan onlookers, but it does better reflect the political alignment of the people.

The Open Primary may even give conservatives more of a voice in CA.  Though it may be rare, a district may pass two Democrats to the next round and each candidate will have to do their best to appeal to the conservative voters in the district as well.  A moderate Democrat could beat a liberal Democrat.

I know these arguments for an Open Primary are not unfamiliar, but they make sense and have theoretical support, unlike the arguments expressed in the FlashReport article.

• reply

This is another one of those issues where the Republican Party is going to really hurt its brand by not supporting a common sense initiative.  All the fearmongering about the top-two primary (such as calling it a "closed primary") is unfounded and unsupported.  Anyone who cares to do research on what happened in other parts of the country that have adopted the top-two primary or a similar system (Lousiana, Washington, etc) will realize that the voters are the big winners.  Parties have to tend more to the middle and ultimately target 70% of the electorate, as opposed to the 30% fringe group who are the ones who control the primary process as it is right now.

Keith and Fleischman will cry foul about this for months until they see the polling numbers, which will heavily favor the yes crowd.  Then they will point to it as a "feel good" measure, or as an "electorate trap", or as an attack on our freedom to assemble, which is absolutely ridiculous.

If folks stop for a minute and look at our legislative districts, one by one, they'll realize that Republicans can only gain from the switch to the top-two primary.  More moderate Democrats can only be good for the State, but that means more moderate Republicans as well; which boils the blood of the fringe. Good riddance.

• reply