It seems safe to say that our political system has gone from a period of sophomoric partisanship to an all out attempt to bring any meaningful progress to a halt in the name of recapturing lost power. Presently, the Republican Party is playing the role of spoiler as they block legislative action and elect to second guess any decision made by any member of the Obama administration. While I find myself more philosophically aligned with the left than the right, I can hold out little hope that anything would be markedly different if the tables were turned (and someday in the not-too-distant-future they will be). Those on the outside have chosen to thwart any and all attempts to enact an agenda dear to the majority’s heart for fear, I imagine, that, god forbid, it might work. Anything else is lamented and suggestions are cast about that a better decision and hence a better result would have been possible had someone from the other party been in charge. Call it gridlock or whatever, but at the end of the day the electorate is left holding the bag as more and more would-be voters are turned off by the spectacle. Their shoulders are slumped and their feet scuffle along the pavement as they sigh and ask, “What can I do?”
Well, my home state of California may have come up with the answer: in last month’s election, the state passed a proposition that a) opens up primaries to all voters regardless of party affiliation and b) allows the top two vote getters to move on to the general election, once again regardless of party affiliation. In the past several primaries for state and federal office, a voter was forced to choose a party and then vote a ballot comprised of those specific candidates. Independents could choose a ballot prior to voting, but were similarly limited once that choice was made. As a result, primary voter turnout was sometimes very thin, especially if a given party had candidates running unopposed.
With this new system, we’ve really shaken up the status quo: party affiliation takes a back seat to substance and third party candidates are finally offered a level playing field. Special interest money must now be spread across a larger field with less chance of picking a winner and the major parties no longer have a grip on the throat of alternative ideas that neither wish to entertain. With all these ingredients, I can’t help but think that primary turnout will soar as more, not less, feel an opportunity to have a say in their governance.
And the general election will, as a result of the open primary, allow the top two contenders to face off. No, not the top Republican and top Democrat, the top two candidates, period. Maybe they’re both Republicans, or maybe both Democrats, or maybe neither. Who cares? We’ve got the two candidates that drew the most votes. What could be more representative than that? (I know it’s hard to believe, but the two major parties were the major opponents of this proposition.)
The prospect of a wide open elective process represents a clean break from business as usual. It clears the back rooms of stale cigar smoke and brings a ray of sunshine into the cloak room that might finally introduce a cadre of individuals more interested in compromise and progress than intransigence and stalemate.
My hope is that other states, their voters, and their representatives will be watching (some with trepidation and others with temerity). This is an idea with the potential of igniting the revolution in Washington that we’ve heard so much about and awaited for so long. And bloodless, at that.
2 comments:
If a scientific-minded person wants to know how some idea works, he or she will check to see how it has actually worked in practice, in places where it had alrady been tried. The top-two system has been used in Louisiana for 35 years. All it does it make it even easier for incumbents to be re-elected than in a normal system. In all the years Louisiana used top-two for congress, only once was any incumbent defeated for re-election from either house of Congress. But when Louisiana switched to a normal system in 2008, in which parties have their own primaries and their own nominees, two incumbents were defeated.
The anonymous commenter suggests (I think) that I should have known of Louisiana's voting experiment. If only I had interns, but, alas, I do not. Regardless, my thoughts centered around only the potential for significant changes on election day. It remains within the wishes of the voters as to who goes (or returns) to work for the electorate. True, change and/or fear of the unknown candidate spurs some to vote for an incumbent. All we can do is create a system within which other choices may not seem so scary. Time will tell, and I continue to hope for a better result than that experienced in Louisiana.
Post a Comment