Argument: Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power

Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1]

By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.

[1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/09/prop-14-s-winners-and-losers.html

[2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010, http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/open-primaries

Candidate 1: "Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere.

Greater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion."
Candidate 2: "Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate

Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.

This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]

The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.

[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090314_4955.php"
Candidate 3: "Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties

Primary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008).

This can be damaging as parties are made to spend their time focussing their energies on themselves instead of the opposition only to create an image of a divided party that alienates voters who prefer parties who can convey a coherent message about what they can provide for the future.

Primaries obscure what a party is about, changing the focus from being about policy and the message of the party to the candidate with personal attributes such as image being of importance. This makes politics much more superficial than it already is."
Candidate 4: "This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout.

Even if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate.

[1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.eu"
Candidate 5: "People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process."
Candidate 6: "Open primaries are open to manipulation

Because political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election.

We have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ candidates have been elected by Open Primary as means of discrediting a party and helping their opponents win the general election. A famous instance of this was in the Democratic Primary for the US Senate seat in South Carolina, where the winner, Alvin Greene became the candidate with little advertising or successful fundraising, leading to accusations of a Republican campaign to make re-election of their incumbent, Jim DeMint, much easier. [1]

In other instances, it is also possible that the opposition party can use the election as a means of electing a candidate that most reflects their views, neutering the effect of losing the general election. Either way, Open Primaries can be manipulated to create unrealistic outcomes that neither the party nor the electorate truly want, damaging the political process.

[1] ‘Alvin Greene’s implausible S.C. victory: 6 theories’, the week, 10 June 2010, http://theweek.com/article/index/203864/alvin-greenes-implausible-sc-victory-6-theories"
Candidate 7: "Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties

Primaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological.

The dominance of centrist candidates in primaries may lead to convergence between the major parties to the extent that there is little difference between them for voters to choose from in the general election. [1] This creates the harm of not presenting a clear democratic choice to voters, which can help feed the discontent with politics that discontent hopes will be countered by Open Primaries.

[1] White, Stuart, ‘Why open primaries are a really bad idea’, NextLeft, 26 May 2009, http://www.nextleft.org/2009/05/why-open-primaries-are-really-bad-idea.html"
Candidate 8: "Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government.

[1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, http://open.salon.com/blog/front_porch_republic/2010/06/09/open_primaries_and_the_illusion_of_choice"
Candidate 9: "Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities

Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club [1] ).

Primary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government.

[1] Carlton, Jim, ‘Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path’, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575058372413222414.html"
Candidate 10: "The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without them being diluted by the outside influence of those who may actually fundamentally disagree with what the party believes in. Those on the fringe are better off advocating their policies better instead of voting for candidates of the party they do not support.

Very occasionally an open primary may allow an independent to seriously run, but this will be so rare that it will not compensate for having their independent platforms at elections."

Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government.

[1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, http://open.salon.com/blog/front_porch_republic/2010/06/09/open_primaries_and_the_illusion_of_choice
