Most conservative Republicans in California are opposed to changing the rules so that DTS (Decline to State) or independent voters can vote in the GOP primaries. I think that is a huge mistake.
The California Democratic Party allows DTS voters to pull Democrat voters in the primary. I in fact intend to do so next year so that I can cast a vote for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
But if I wanted to vote for a Republican, I could not.
It begs the question – what will DTS voters do in the general? I understand that up to 40% of California voters are now DTS. That is a huge plum for the party that is smart enough to reach out to these disenfranchised voters. Right now that would be the Democrats, not the Republicans.
I believe that conservatives want to keep the DTS voters out of next year’s presidential primary for fear that they will vote for Rudy Giuliani instead of Mitt Romney. I think a lot of them would vote for Giuliani, but others would likely go with Fred Thompson, if he ever announces.
Flash Report blogger and editor Jon Fleischman wrote about his vote against changing the California GOP primary election rules at this link. He is quite proud of his vote, “Along with my board colleague, Vice Chairman Tom Del Becarro, we jointly introduced a successful, one sentence resolution opposing any change in our current rules.”
Fleischman may have doomed his party. As it currently stands, the Republicans have no chance of winning California in the general if they try do it with a troglodyte conservative. They need a moderate candidate if they are to have any hope in this state. And they need help from DTS voters in the general, big-time, if they are to prevail in that election.
But why should DTS voters help out a Republican Party that is determined to keep them out of their primary? It makes no sense. Apparently the California Republican Party leadership is hellbent on becoming extinct.
This is a huge generalization, but: I think allowing DTS voters to vote in your Party’s primary has the effect of giving more votes to the moderate candidates, as I believe DTS voters are generally moderates.
Since the far-right and far-left candidates are less likely to win nationally, the Party who runs the more moderate candidate will frequently be the winner. So I agree with you, Art.
I guess the real question is why the heck do we have “open” primaries anyway? It really is an internal party beauty contest. As an independent I was surprised to get the chance to vote in the primary elections when they changed the law. I think it really does mess up the way the party gets to choose the representative that get to go to the real election. I can see advantages to both the open system and the party only system, but which one is best? I don’t really know. I would guess that open primaries get more voters to the polls for other issues, and perhaps that’s why they opened up that can of worms.
Carl,
As you know, many DTS voters are Republicans. It would be wise, IMHO, to let them vote in the presidential primary, or else risk losing them in the general.
Voters don’t like to be dissed – and that is exactly what the CA GOP is doing by excluding thousands of former Republicans from the primary.
This is an obvious tactic by the GOP machine to help their guy, Romney, at the expense of Giuliani. But Romney has no chance to win. He just doesn’t have broad national support.
It appears that the Reeps rather lose with Romney than win with Giuliani.
Art,
Since most of my life has been spent without voting for any “party” candidate in a primary election I don’t carry that baggage. I had to shake my head an question why they voted to have open primaries in the first place. If you want to vote for a party candidate you should join the party. That may be the reason the GOP voted to close the primary to party members only. Let those who want to participate in the party choose their parties destiny.
Good or bad? We will see…? The question of open primaries good or bad is an interesting one, and one I don’t know if there’s any empirical evidence to look at.
“The question of open primaries good or bad is an interesting one, and one I don’t know if there’s any empirical evidence to look at.”
Carl,
Lets say that you have predominantly Democratic district, and Democrats are allowed to vote in GOP primary, and GOP has good and bad candidate.
It is clear that the Democrats would vote for bad GOP candidate thus boost the Democratic candidate in general election.
In other words the open primary would cause Democrats to dominate by vote for their candidate as well as his opponent….. That is bad!!!
Only Mexican Arturo Pedroza can propose such gravely idiotic concept.
However, I would rather gave up primary process and have only one general election with 100s of candidates.
It worked just fine in recent gubernatorial recall election.
Art. From the July 23rd Leonard Letter. Bill Leonard is a Member, State Board of Equalization.
“AROUND THE STATE
***