From California:
Under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries will be replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections. The top two vote-getters - whatever their party, or if they have no party at all - will face off in the general election.
Supporters argue that without parties picking candidates for the general election, moderates and independents will move to the fore, and voters will pay more attention to the electoral process.
Critics of the measure say it will give a huge advantage to candidates who have the most money or the widest name recognition.
Interesting, eh? It wouldn't be a bad idea for Montana, where a lot of elections are decided during the primary in districts that are heavily skewed Republican or Democratic. Take Missoula's HD94, where LiTW fave, Ellie Hill, beat out Lou Ann Crowley by 94 votes: there's no Republican challenger on the general election ballot. And even if there was, a Republican doesn't stand much of a chance in a district that was +38 for Obama. And while Ellie's probably cursing me for wishing a general-election opponent on her, wouldn't it be a good thing to have a meaning legislative ballot for HD94's voters in November? Likewise, across the state's conservative districts, many state representatives have already been chosen in the primary.
But...a primary allows an underdog. The elections are smaller and less expensive, the voters typically more committed and knowledgeable, elections more about policy and ideas than the general election's over-reliance on personal narrative. Primaries let more candidates enter the race -- imagine the pressure on non-establishment candidates to drop out for fear they'd steal votes from the establishment picks. And you could argue that Montana's open primary already blunts pure partisanship from selecting general-election opponents.
Oh, and in case you were hoping that publicly financed elections had a chance here in Montana -- for the Supreme Court race, say -- the SCOTUS, in its ongoing efforts to elevate the speech of corporate persons over everyday persons, issued a "temporary emergency order" for Arizona's publicly financed candidates from receiving matching funds of opponents "who haven't opted into the system." (There's an excellent segment on NOW that explains how publicly financed elections work.) The emergency order grew out of a 2006 SCOTUS decision against the "millionaire's amendment" of McCain-Feingold Act, which "allowed a candidate to raise more money through larger donations if his opponent was spending lavishly." Of the amendment, Justice Alito said it was a "'drag' on the free-speech rights of the wealthier candidate because he was penalized for spending more."
No mention was made of the "drag" on our free-speech rights because we didn't happen to be born into a multi-million-dollar inheritance, or happen to value things other than money. Like, say, family, farming, or study.
Anyway...thoughts on election reform in Montana? |
