Open Primaries: No have or not to have

That is the question . . . the question being answered recently by a group of independent voters who went to court. The lawsuit includes television and radio commentator Michael Smerconish and David Thornburgh, chairman of Ballot PA, a group lobbying to open the primaries to independent voters. The latest effort argues that the system violates the "free and equal" elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. By being barred from participating in these primaries, independent voters are denied a meaningful opportunity to have their voices heard in selecting their elected officials.

Efforts to repeal Pennsylvania’s closed primary election process have repeatedly stalled in the Legislature, despite support from a number of influential political figures over the years.

 

Open primaries are a type of primary election in which voters are not required to declare party affiliation. This means that any registered voter can vote in any party's primary. Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons:

Open primaries can increase voter turnout, especially among independent or unaffiliated voters, who are a growing segment of the electorate. They allow more voters to participate in what are often the decisive elections, particularly in areas where one party dominates. Open primaries may encourage candidates to adopt more moderate positions to appeal to a broader range of voters, rather than just the party's base. This can potentially lead to less partisan gridlock in government.

Voters have more flexibility to choose which primary to participate in, allowing them to vote for the candidate they believe is best, regardless of party affiliation. This can lead to candidates that better represent the general population. Studies have shown that open primaries lead to greater representation of unaffiliated voters and also increased voter turnout from minority groups.

On the other hand, voters from one party might vote in another party's primary to influence the outcome, potentially nominating a weaker candidate who would be easier to defeat in the general election. Open primaries can weaken political parties by reducing their control over the nomination process. This can lead to less party loyalty and more fragmented political landscape.

It can distort the party's nomination process and undermine the party's ability to choose its own candidate. Voters may find the system confusing, especially if they are not familiar with the candidates or the issues. Some people feel that closed primaries are important to keep the parties ideologically pure. They feel that open primaries allow people who do not agree with the parties to influence the party’s candidate choices.

Proponents of the current closed primary system argue that political parties, as private organizations, have the right to determine who participates in their nomination process. They maintain that party affiliation is a choice, and those who wish to vote in a party's primary can simply register with that party.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been asked to take up the case directly, a move reserved for matters of immediate public importance. The outcome of this legal challenge could have a profound impact on the state's electoral landscape and the voting rights of its independent citizens.

What do you think?

Why you should attend political events

 Why you should attend political events

By Patrick Fero 
Political misfeasance and nonfeasance begin at home.
A poignant litany. Experience suggests any problems start at the local level where there is little if any oversight, but plenty of action, reaction, and nonaction. There are few citizens with the time or ability to examine. They rely on local news outlets that may lack resources for deep investigations. Very few political officials are dubious, and some media outlets do provide valuable investigative reporting. While citizens can use public records, and other methods, to obtain the truth, getting time and opportunity can be daunting. 
Local officials are responsible by law for only local affairs such as roads, handling public emergencies and land use. They do not get into abortion, TV programming or policing neighbors from hell. Your councilpeople and supervisors deal with the issues of place, not morals. However, when you vote for these people, you might want to concern yourself with their morals and ethics and judgment.
For one thing, note how many of those state and federal elected officials you wonder about started out as township supervisors, borough councilpeople, mayors and even school board directors. Yes, many use the lower offices as steppingstones to higher ones. They give politicians gravitas, experience, and visibility, and those offices are often easier to get into because there are so few competitors.
People, even people who are deeply skeptical and may see their state and federal representatives as reprehensible miscreants, accept somehow the notion that their local representatives are different.
Think about it. How interested are you in subjecting yourself and your family to the mendacious scrutiny and vicious attacks that attend even the lowest political races these days? Your answer probably is, no way. Then think about why the people whose names you see on the ballot are willing to risk going through that gauntlet.
A wonderful way to find out is to attend political events and regular meetings in which candidates are available for scrutiny. You can also see government officials in social, unscripted settings by attending meetings throughout the year.
Only knowledgeable voters can best influence who represents them in the governments of any assembly in Pennsylvania. Through civic engagement they have the democratic power of informed voters to hold officials accountable. When you attend meetings where your officials are available to you on a personal level, you exercise your responsibility in a democracy.