You probably know by now that U.S. Senator Thad Cochran surprised State Senator Chris McDaniel in Mississippi’s Republican primary runoff yesterday. You also probably know that McDaniel’s Tea Party supporters are pissed.
Is it fun to watch Republicans fight amongst themselves? Yes it is. But at the same time, I can empathize with McDaniel supporters.
Here in Georgia, we also have an open primary system where we don’t have to declare a party affiliation when registering to vote, and anybody can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries. So I can imagine being just as frustrated if a strong progressive candidate lost a close Democratic primary because the Republican-lite candidate recruited Republicans to swing the election his (or her) way.
The main arguments that I’ve heard in favor of open primaries are that they increase voter turnout and increase the likelihood of electing more centrist candidates. Clearly, open primaries sometimes succeed in meeting one or both of these objectives. But I don’t agree that these objectives are worth pursuing, at least not via open primaries.
If open primaries do increase the likelihood of electing more centrist candidates, then that can be a double-edged sword. For example, Democrats might be relieved when a less extreme Republican is nominated in a safe red state because of open primaries. But then again, it wouldn’t feel so good if a Republican-lite candidate defeated a strong progressive in a blue state for the same reason.
With regard to increased turnout, if a potential voter isn’t familiar enough with the issues to know the difference between a Republican and Democrat…or…is familiar with the issues, but doesn’t have enough in common to affiliate with either party, then I’d prefer that they stay out of the primaries…even if the result is lower turnout. Encouraging people to help nominate candidates for a party that they don’t participate in or, at least, affiliate with isn’t right.
Let registered party members select their own candidates. Close the primaries.