California Republicans open primaries
By Neil Stevens Posted in California | open primaries | primaries | Republicans | State Politics — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was sitting here, reading my sample ballot for the June primary election here in California, and noticed something startling. It says here that nonpartisan voters may request a ballot for any of the following parties: Democratic Party, Republican Party, American Independent Party. This is a change. In the past, independents could only vote in the Democratic and AI primaries.
Clearly, the California Republican Party has changed the policy. I assume this happened at the last convention in San Francisco, during which my attention was focused on the platform fight.
This is disappointing to me. As things stand, conservative stalwarts in the party do the state a great service by leveraging their Constitutional prerogatives and limiting the tax-and-spend desires of the Democratic majority. If we allow ourselves to be watered down by 'independents,' then we could destroy that, and the Democrats would be able to run amok raising taxes, supermajority requirement or no.
I, for one, personally prefer we go back to having truly closed primaries. Even if "moderating" on spending, taxes, and culture would net us a few more seats, it could cost us what limited success we do have in Sacramento.
You see, we're a LONG way from being able to set policy. But the way the California Constitution is set up, you only need a minority to block the budget. So a small but sufficient number of right wingers will actually do MORE for the state than a larger group of moderates.
To me, trying to expand is a big gamble. We need to make up a LOT of ground for it to work and retake the majorities, and if we fail, we could lose everything and turn into Massachusetts policy-wise.
Yes, there is a difference. We're run by SF Democrats, true, but they actually can't ever really raise taxes. They have to go to the ballot to do it, and that rarely works.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
A non-partisan effort to redistrict the state is the only way to shake things loose. Perhaps the way to do this is by a counter-intuitive approach. Break the state up into thousands of sub-districts who are allowed to join with other sub-districts to form an electoral district, subject to certification (based on population requirements and geography), and repeat the process every ten years (on those ending in 5, to prevent it from falling on presidential election years). This way we can minimize gerrymandering and maximize the voice of the voters.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
That's why Governor Girly Man wants redistricting: He wants to beat all the McClintocks of the state and replace them with his clones.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Conservatives would benefit more by my approach if you believe their number in California (including those who learn right) constitute more than a blocking minority. I think they do, then they would be naturally motivated to form more pro-GOP districts, although probably fewer uncontested GOP districts.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
The only way conservative Republicans can win statewide is either through some once in a generation landslide (like 1994), or by giving up on anything but an extreme far-left abortion position. If we do that we lose activists and then lose in the long run anyway.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
No argument from me on becoming a majority, but that doesn't negate the possibility of increasing GOP representation in Sacramento and making districts reflective of the voters, not the parties (which I think would work in the favor of fiscally conservative policies).
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Yes, and lets close the primaries in all states. Then the dems won't be able to pick our nominee as they did this year. And Rush Limbaugh won't be able to mess with their primaries.
It's commonsense so it won't happen.
The one effort they made to meddle in our primary for nefarious purposes was the Dems for Mitt campaign in MI. It may have worked in MI but it did help McCain, our nominee.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I'm kind of torn on this issue and agree with arguments from both sides of the coin. My problem with closed primaries however is that it limits the number of people able to vote and gives a lot of people no voice in the process.
So I have two questions that aren't meant to be sarcastic or have any meaning behind it. They are just questions I have in regards to my concerns with closed primaries.
-Do you feel that closed primaries are less democratic because they block out a percent of the population from voting that don't agree with your views?
-Would a better approach be trying to convert/educate independents into conservatives so that they can compete better in the general?
The problem seems to be the constituents of California who are voting for bad candidates, not the actual procedure that is in place to elect them.
- I don't think our primaries have any relevance to democracy. Even if democracy were good (it's not; that's why wer'e a Republican), it only applies to government and the general elections.
I personally would favor caucuses over primaries, if it were up to me. But I'll settle for closed primaries.
- I think outreach is a fine and good thing. But let's do the outreach before the primary, and then only let the people we've successfully reached out toward come vote with us.
Churches tend to have open doors, letting anyone in who wants to come. But they don't let any group of people off the street vote on the new pastor.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Is that by inviting in the "independents" you will develop a candidate pool that will actually be able to win elections. Right now you have a small group of right-wingers who are stuck trying to ameliorate bad policy. Wouldn't it be better to be able to put together a more center-right majority that can actually set the agenda and implement some good policy for a change?
I am not taking sides as I don't live in California, have no interest in living in California, and am of the opinion that California is, by and large, a lost cause. But I do always find it amusing when people present the open primary as the greatest threat to the Party and that the way to improve the Party is to shut unaffiliated voters out our primaries.