Chuck Schumer: End partisan primaries

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Chuck Schumer: End partisan primaries

Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling for abolishing partisan primaries, saying the current system engenders unhealthy political polarization.

"The partisan primary system, which favors more ideologically pure candidates, has contributed to the election of more extreme officeholders and increased political polarization," the New York Democrat wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Monday evening. "It has become a menace to governing."

Schumer said that partisan primaries embolden "the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum" and pointed to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's surprise loss to Dave Brat, a political novice who ran to the right of Cantor and had the support of the tea party.

He said that this was particularly problematic given the low turnout in primary elections, writing, "[P]rimaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don't typically vote in primaries."

Schumer argued that partisan primaries have had a particularly pernicious impact on the Republican Party, "where centrists and moderates are increasingly rare."

Schumer instead called for the country to adopt a "top two" primary system like that in California, where all voters regardless of party cast ballots in a primary election and the top two vote-getters proceed to a general election runoff. Such a system, the senator writes, would force candidates to appeal to the broader electorate as opposed to a small segment on the ideological fringe.

The system in California, he said, has been "a moderating influence on both parties and a salutary effect on the political system and its ability to govern."

I think that is a good start.  I have never thought the candidate selection for the two main parties should be institutionalized the way it is.  I would prefer, though, to see a non-partisan primary election using an instant runoff system, to lessen bitching about "spoilers".

On a related note, on what grounds is Virginia's "sore loser" law constitutional?

[derspiess]

I'm sure Chuckie has non-partisan motivations in calling for this.

[Berkut]

Does it matter?

Even if it is purely partisan, it would still benefit democracy. Isn't that worth something?

[derspiess]

I don't trust Chuckie.  He's up to something here.

[Valmy]

I'm sure Chuckie has non-partisan motivations in calling for this.

He knows all the Republicans in his state will support him.

[Viking]

This is basically the french system, which might result in a Chirac vs LePen style run off because the french left is infested with nader like trotskyists, maoists, communists and other kins of crazies the lefties vote for in the first round to feel better about themselves.

[Valmy]

This is basically the french system, which might result in a Chirac vs LePen style run off because the french left is infested with nader like trotskyists, maoists, communists and other kins of crazies the lefties vote for in the first round to feel better about themselves.

I was about to say: no Democrat would ever be in the general election in Texas again.  It would always be the Tea Party versus Establishment Republicans.  Which would actually be a big improvement

[Syt]

What about an end to primary partisans?

[DGuller]

Chuck Schumer: End partisan primaries

Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling for abolishing partisan primaries, saying the current system engenders unhealthy political polarization.

"The partisan primary system, which favors more ideologically pure candidates, has contributed to the election of more extreme officeholders and increased political polarization," the New York Democrat wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Monday evening. "It has become a menace to governing."

Schumer said that partisan primaries embolden "the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum" and pointed to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's surprise loss to Dave Brat, a political novice who ran to the right of Cantor and had the support of the tea party.

He said that this was particularly problematic given the low turnout in primary elections, writing, "[P]rimaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don't typically vote in primaries."

Schumer argued that partisan primaries have had a particularly pernicious impact on the Republican Party, "where centrists and moderates are increasingly rare."

Schumer instead called for the country to adopt a "top two" primary system like that in California, where all voters regardless of party cast ballots in a primary election and the top two vote-getters proceed to a general election runoff. Such a system, the senator writes, would force candidates to appeal to the broader electorate as opposed to a small segment on the ideological fringe.

The system in California, he said, has been "a moderating influence on both parties and a salutary effect on the political system and its ability to govern."

I think that is a good start.  I have never thought the candidate selection for the two main parties should be institutionalized the way it is.  I would prefer, though, to see a non-partisan primary election using an instant runoff system, to lessen bitching about "spoilers".

On a related note, on what grounds is Virginia's "sore loser" law constitutional?

That doesn't sound like a bad solution at all, and I think it may also temper the pernicious effect of gerrymandering.  I wonder how well it works in practice, and whether there are any unintended side unleashed by it.

[grumbler]

On a related note, on what grounds is Virginia's "sore loser" law constitutional?

That's a good question, but I think one of the reasons the law may have survived is that challenging it would do no good; the date for filing for an independent run is the same as the primary election day, so that one couldn't know the results of the primary before the deadline for filing had passed.

[Jacob]

I don't trust Chuckie.  He's up to something here.

I think he'd like to see the Republican party to stop its tea party convulsions and drift and put more moderates in power. At the same time, he probably wouldn't mind if the more leftist Democrats were defanged a bit further as well.

[garbon]

That doesn't sound like a bad solution at all, and I think it may also temper the pernicious effect of gerrymandering.  I wonder how well it works in practice, and whether there are any unintended side unleashed by it.

The criticism listed here seems to suggested it doesn't do much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary#criticism

[DGuller]

That doesn't sound like a bad solution at all, and I think it may also temper the pernicious effect of gerrymandering.  I wonder how well it works in practice, and whether there are any unintended side unleashed by it.

The criticism listed here seems to suggested it doesn't do much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary#criticism

Yeah, sounds like it needs to be paired with instant runoff voting to have a chance to be effective, and even then there are going to be problems.

[Berkut]

Given the availability of technology, why not use it to go forward with a multiple run off, where you whittle the numbers down? Isn't the main objection to that the time it would take?

You could do it in a week now if we could securely use the internet for voting.

[Berkut]

We could get the same people who put together the Obamacare website to come up with something secure...