Will the California GOP be trapped by the closed primary?
The California Republican Party is debating a motion by Flash Report editor Jon Fleischman to boot decline to state voters from our primaries beginning in the June 2010 election. This motion is an amendment to the state party platform that delegates will be voting on in the September convention in Indian Wells.
I believe that this motion is a big mistake to our political party. People have been moving away from our party and we need those independent voters in the primaries to help cement the victories in November. If declines to state voter voters for the Republican in the primary, chances are the voter will be voting Republican in the November election.
Even if we changed the rules to only allow Republican Party members to vote in party primaries, demographic changes in the last thirty years will make it impossible for any conservative to win in our state. If you like our gerrymandered state legislature where only safe Republicans can get elected, and in swing districts we get defeated you will like the motion to keep our primaries closed. The Democratic Party will eventually get the 2/3rds majority due to our ineptitude in getting experienced and inclusive candidates that could win in toss-up districts.
I understand that conservative activists would strive for ideological purity; sure it would work for Assembly District 4 or State Senate District 36. However, how will we win Assembly District 15, 43, 44 or 53 with a closed primary?
Our primaries are not entirely open, decline to state voters pick a party to stand for during the election where they can vote for anything, but the party executive for their county which is reserved only for party members. However this is the best compromise where we can broaden our electorate, but have checks and balances to prevent people from voting Democratic for Governor, and Republican for Secretary of State like the classic open primary that was rejected in California Democratic Party v Jones, where we still maintain freedom of association due to the major parties allowing the decline to state voter to participate.
If we as Republicans want to be the majority party in California we have to figure out why Republicans in various regions of our state abandoned the party to become decline to state. In the Silicon Valley the Republican Party is the third leading political party behind decline to state. Why are former Republicans forsaking partisan affiliation? Unfortunately Republicans have a tough challenge ahead, Meg Whitman cited in her event in Covina that a Republican needs to win 90% of the Republican vote, 60% of Decline to State voters, and 20% of Democratic voters to succeed in a state wide office. However by eliminating the ability of Decline to State voters to participate in the primary, the Republican Party will have a greater challenge and higher difficulty in retaining the governor’s office.
The proponents believe it will strengthen the party and encourage the independent voter to join our party, but our party is alienating many different groups that would be receptive to the message of the Republican Party. If we become the party of inclusion, then more people will want to be part of our political party and attain a partisan affiliation. This proposed change is sudden and should be done in a later election cycle so we could work on building a base who would want to be part of our political party. Locking the doors to the club house will only cause damage in the long run, making our state party irrelevant like Massachusetts.
If we want to be successful in future election cycles we need to get the decline to state voter to get to know us as Republicans. We should use computer technology to find out when voters switch from Republican to Decline to State and find out how we can win them back over, invite them to our county party meetings and do our best so they can come back home. For the success of our party, independent voters should not be locked out of our primaries.
Matt Munson was the 2002 Nominee for Assembly District 61 and is a contributor to the Orange Juice and Iepolitics.com
Freedom of association means just that, freedom of association.
cook,
I realize most Reeps don’t want to associate with anyone who is not a white Christian conservative, but guess what? That demographic is fading away. Not a good way to build a party…
Jon and friends have the right to change the party rules, and change the locks to the club house. However we are alienating so many groups and it will become more difficult to get new blood to support the party and its candidates.
The demographic that helped get Reagan elected is not there anymore. We need a new playbook, else we will lose the Latinos permanently like African Americans, and we will lose the millennium generation as well. We need to be socially inclusive and fiscally responsible and we will win again in California.
I don’t think there is any “changing of the locks” to the clubhouse. If a DTS voter wants to vote Republican then they can change their registration. I think any political party has a strong interest in making sure that there is some minimal level of interest in its policies before it lets people decide who will be their nominee and carry the party banner into a general election.
I wouldn’t want the Dems or the Libertarian Party to have any differnt effect. Its not just about Republicans.
By the way, I don’t think the open primary issue is as much about race as it is about gay rights and abortion. My gut feeling is that people who vote motivated by race issues and see the GOP in a particular light on those policies are not going to vote in GOP primaries regardless (or will bullet vote for one candidate to the exclusion of other republican candidates).