Walter Olson
Walter Olson
This November voters in Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho will consider whether to adopt versions of the “Alaska model,” discussed in this space here, here, and here, which does away with party primaries in favor of a single primary open to all followed by a general election that employs ranked choice voting (RCV). Alaska voters themselves will also vote on whether to keep that model, opponents having succeeded in submitting enough petition signatures to place a repeal measure on the ballot. And voters in Arizona and Montana will consider taking a big partial step toward the Alaska model by replacing party primaries with a single open-to-all primary, without resolving whether RCV or some other method, such as a runoff, will be used to sort out the results of a general election in which no candidate commands a majority.
There’s enough material here for several posts. I’ll start by tackling just one question: how the open-to-all primary model differs from the so-called open primary model that’s been kicking around for decades.
In that older open primary model, any voter can request and vote the primary ballot of any party. Advocates for such an arrangement say it gives a greater voice to voters, particularly independents, who these days make up by far the largest portion of the electorate but who are otherwise shut out of the stage of the election in which a majority of races are practically decided.
Questions of participation aside, advocates say open primaries are also more likely to give a shot to candidates who can appeal to a broad range of voters and not just the party’s base.
Whatever the merits of such arguments, the old open primary model suffers from an objection in principle and a related flaw in practice that has limited its appeal. The objection in principle is that political parties are private groups that should enjoy freedom of association, » Read More
https://www.cato.org/blog/open-primaries-versus-nonpartisan-universal-primary