So I go to vote in Vermont's primary today and the lady hands me four ballots -- Democratic, Republican, Liberty Union, Progressive. I am to take all 4 to the voting booth but only vote on one of them. I could vote the Republican ballot and try to knock out their strongest candidates,
Rich Tarrant for Senate and
Martha Rainville for the House.
They are both being challenged from the right by candidates
Greg Parke (Senate)and
Mark Shepard (House). I could vote for the more wingnutty candidates to help insure victory for
Bernie and
Peter Welch in November. SO I was torn. Do I vote on the ballot that best reflects my preferences in November or vote strategically, and try to knock out the strongest Republican opponent? Looking at Rich Tarrant's name reminded me of his shamefully
hateful and distorted ads, and I thought "wow I dont have to wait until Novemeber to vote against this creep."
But of course that very logic is the argument against having open primaries. Primaries pick party preferences and any strategic crossover voting is inherently unethical-- or so goes the argument. Open primaries are available so that independent minded voters can influence the most competitive races, and make the resulting winner of that primary race that much stronger. I can also see someone ethically voting crossover against a dangerous, likely-to-win candidate, some one who must be stopped. But Tarrant trails Sanders by 30% and Welch is starting to consistently lead Rainville in polls. And if i voted for Parke and Shephard, I would be voting for candidates whom I disgree with on just about any issue one could imagine.
I'm also thinking about other states, particulary the Laffey/Chafee primary. Part of me says that open primaries are a great idea and therefore we ought to use them to the fullest extent possible and another part of me says I need to vote in the party primary that best reflects my preferences. Who's got the answers here?