Argument: Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics

By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.

An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]

This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.

[1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/12/editorial-california-should-switch-to-open-primary-elections/

[2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2 http://home.uchicago.edu/betsy/papers/Sinclair_BlanketPrimary.pdf

Candidate 1: "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 2: "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 3: "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 4: "While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections.

Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy."
Candidate 5: "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 6: "Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent."
Candidate 7: "This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent."
Candidate 8: "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."
Candidate 9: "Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate.

Candidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out).

While there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time."
Candidate 10: "There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference [1] ). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.

[1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8678413/Ed-Miliband-plans-to-water-down-trade-unions-influence-over-Labour.html"

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
