Primary Election Reform
Two Proposals from Voters Take Charge
Expanded Primaries (EP) and Neutral Open Primaries (NOP) will make elections fair, competitive and entertaining.
Problems
Our current party primaries are rigged in favor of major parties. The new Top Four and Final Five blanket primaries are rigged in favor of well-funded independent candidates. Both systems are unfair to third-parties and under-funded independents.
Most states and election districts are safe for one of the major parties. In those areas, small sets of partisan voters choose the winners in the primaries, minor paarties are locked out.
In contested general elections, the spoiler effect nueters third parties and independent candidates.
Solutions
Expanded Primaries include third parties and independent candidates. They share in the publicity generated by primary elections. Winners head into the general election with the momentum of victory. Details below.
Neutral Open Primaries are blanket primaries that include third parties and independent candidates. They are designed to be fair to all parties and candidates. Details below.
EP or NOP plus better voting methods like Score, STAR and BTR-Score will give third parties and independent candidates a fair chance and eliminate the spoiler effect. Top Four and Final Five proponants include Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) with their primaries, but RCV is susceptable to the spoiler effect
Proportional representation (PR) will make every race competive so every vote counts. PR also defeats gerrymandering and rigged redistricting. For fairness to voters and parties, 30% of the vote should win 30% of the seats.
Current Primary Elections
Only major parties may take part in primaries. They gain easy publicity as their candidates sail onto the November ballot with the momentum of victory, often with a pulse of campaign cash. Third-party and independent candidates miss out on the publicity, the victories, and the money. Instead, they must petition on to the ballot.
In the general election, the spoiler effect deters voters from voting for third-party or independent candidates. Two-party rule is locked in.
Top Four Alaskan Model
Proposals for Alaskan model primaries will likely be on the November ballot in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington D.C. Each state has variations. These proposals have strong financial backing. We cover the Colorado proposal in depth on CO Proposition 131 – RCV & Top 4 Primaries.
The Alaskan model is a two-round system. Round one is a blanket primary for all candidates. The top four candidates advance to round two, where Ranked Choice voting (RCV) is used to choose the winner. RCV is a better voting method than Choose 1 voting, but it does not eliminate the spoiler effect. For a deeper dive, please visit our Ranked Choice voting page.
Confusion
Top Four primaries claim to be nonpartisan. In truth, they are confusing. The ballot does not display party nominations. Instead, ballots display each candidate’s party affiliation from voter registration records.
Voters will be annoyed by the confusion. Party nominees may lose votes. A party’s candidates will compete for votes and campaign money. Well-funded independents will benefit.
All Top Four candidates must petition on to the blanket primary ballot. Signatures will become costly and difficult to get. A voter can sign only one nominating petition for each race. A second signature is invalid. Third-party and under-funded independent candidates may struggle to qualify.
Wealthy Independents
Well-heeled independents are not subject to party bosses, but they accept campaign donations and/or SuperPac help. Most are loyal to their economic class. Ross Perot was a possible exception. We dispel the myth that we must favor the wealthy to make the economy work in The Second Law of Economics and Why We Vote.
Neutral Open Primaries
Neutral Open Primaries are fair to all candidates.
Like a Top Four primary, a Neutral Open Primary system is an open blanket primary for all candidates. The top four candidates compete in the general election. There are four key differences from the Alaskan model.
1 – Ballots show which candidates are party nominees.
2 – The nominees for major and minor parties go on the first-round ballot without signature requirements.
3 – In lieu of the qualifications and responsibilities of political parties, independent candidates qualify for the ballot by petition.
4 – Replace Ranked Choice voting – Methods like Approval, Score, and STAR voting are not prone to the spoiler effect.
Score voting is a sound choice for the final. Score is like rating products online. Cast 5 votes for your favorite, 0 votes for the candidate you rate lowest. Cast votes for other candidates in comparison. Ties are ok.
The candidate with the most votes wins. This complies with state constitutions that require the winner to have the “highest,” “largest,” or “greatest” number of votes.
Choose One voting will work for first round nominations in a blanket primary. Voters supporting their favorite candidate will yield a field of four candidates who reflect the views of most voters. Other methods may work better, for now our inclination is to keep it simple.
Expanded Primaries
Expanded Primaries can replace traditional primaries or we can hold them before a blanket primary in a three-round system.
Like traditional primaries, Expanded Primaries have separate races to choose nominees for each party. Independent candidates compete against each. Voters select nominees for parties large and small, plus an independent champion.
Competition generates publicity. Third-party and independent candidates need this opportunity to engage voters. Winners gain momentum and increased donations.
Options for Parties
Expanded primaries offer each party three options; they can hold an open, semi-open, or closed primary. Large parties may prefer closed or semi-closed primaries to prevent their rivals from invading their primary to help a weak candidate. Small parties may chose open primaries to gain attention.
Choices for Voters
Party members can vote in their party primary or in an open primary race, or for an independent candidate.
Independent voters can vote for an independent candidate or in an open or semi-open primary race.
Expanded Primaries Two Round System
Unlike traditional and Alaskan model primaries, Expanded Primaries are fair to all candidates. If we replace Choose 1 voting with Score voting in the second round, we will create a two round system far superior to our current system.
Like Neutral Open Primaries, we can use Choose 1 voting in the first round.
Expanded Primaries Three Round System
To give voters maximum control, we could hold Expanded Primaries before Neutral Open Primaries, creating a three-round system. A three round system would create space for the consideration of tough issues and new ideas.
The first-round contests will give independents and third parties a new forum. Again, competition generates publicity. Winners get recognition and a surge in campaign contributions.
Second-round Neutral Open Primaries will be much more interesting and entertaining than current primaries. The nominees of all parties large and small will compete with the independent champion.
A four-candidate third round final with Score voting, and without fear of the spoiler effect, will put voters in charge.
Yes, separate primary races for third-party and independent candidates will increase election costs, a third round more so. Fair elections that give voters real choices are like good accounting systems for businesses, well worth the money. Voters must be able to steer the ship to make democracy work.
Protect Third Parties
Our reforms only work if small parties can maintain political party status. Major parties will be tempted to raise the qualifications to lock out small parties. Eternal vigilance will be required. The history of American election reform is littered with backsliding.