The purity purge of the GOP continues with the defeat of Mike Castle by Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary, dampening republican prospects for the November general elections. They deserve it; for months they have been unabashedly taking advantage of populist, reality-detached fear within their base (death panels, birth certificate demands, islamophobia, hispaniphobia, fill-in-the-blank-phobia). Even the stalwart rationals like John McCain and Lindsay Graham have made little attempt to correct the mass of mis-information that used to be the stuff of fringe internet forums, but now is piped 24/7 from anyone who can finagle their way onto Fox News. Now, the "establishment republicans" are completely undone trying to figure out what to do with the likes of Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, and O'Donnell.
Regardless of the incredible warm feeling I get watching republicans succumb to their own dirty tricks, this is not a one-sided issue, and democrats often resort to a similar "race-to-the-bottom" in their primaries. The only reason they have not had to go as far as the republicans is the fringe element of the Democratic base is both smaller and less likely to show up to the polls.
Although I have little sympathy for much of what the tea party stands for, I share their complete disdain for the vast majority of elected politicians (for a completely different reason). Too often, candidates seize on the populist issue of the day (think "Ground-Zero" Mosque), essentially saying to all of their educated, informed, and reasonable constituents "I am appeasing the insane people who need a reason to vote for me, and I don't care what you think, because you have two options this November, Giant Douche-bag and Turd Sandwich, and there is no way you will vote for Turd Sandwich."
You may ask, is there any way to put birthers, truthers, and every other lunatic who if God had her way would get into a car accident on the way to the polls out of the political discussion forever?
I believe there is! It is called open primaries!
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept, the best illustration is a comparison of two states: California and Washington. California is the epitome of gerrymandered electoral politics. Practically every district is designed for congressional job security. For a thorough review, go to wikipedia and check out the section "Bi-partisan gerrymandering," but the simple story is this: in 2000, Republicans and Democrats had a rare moment of complete agreement: "let's demarcate state and federal election district boundaries so that there is no way in hell any future race will be competitive." They created districts that were overwhelmingly republican or democrat. The end result of this completely selfish act was to load the state legislature and the congressional delegation with extremists from each party who rarely cross the aisle. The intermediate result was to completely shut out any moderate voices from primary races. In vacant liberal districts, the most liberal candidate gets the nomination and the democrat always wins, and vice-versa. Even though registered independent voters are able to choose to vote in either the republican or democrat primary, you can imagine that it isn't worth the effort if your choices are, once again, Giant Douchebag or Turd Sandwich. The radicalization was not immediate, as incumbents tend to have an advantage, but the creep has been rapid, and the California budget crisis is, in large part, due to extreme partisanship.
Cue Washington. After the 2004 election, Washington State decided to implement an "open primary" system, whereby all voters are eligible to vote for any candidate from any party, and the top two vote-getters face each other in the general election. In 2008, after a series of lawsuits by - you guessed it - the state democratic and republican parties, the Supreme Court ruled the process constitutional. You can imagine how this might work in practice: instead of appealing only to your base in primaries, you now have to appeal to the entire electorate. The idea is that, if you are insane, you will not make it through the first round. California recently passed a similar law via referendum. In good form, the major parties are already planning their lawsuits, but hopefully they will meet the same fate as those perpetrated by Washington politicos.
In all reality, there is limited evidence of the impact of the open primary system (other than reduced costs from the need for only one primary). The reality of primaries is that only the most motivated voters show up to the polls, and so it might be the case that this will change nothing. According to Richard Winger, someone with more knowledge of electoral politics than me, it probably won't make much of a difference. However, any time both of the establishment parties have a problem with a voter-approved policy, I have to think there is the chance for a significant change to business as usual. Additionally, although motivated voters might be the only ones at the polls, the more insane you sound in your primary tv ads, the more motivated those who disagree with you will be, and so there is clearly a disincentive for extreme views.
I, for one, am sick of insanity from either side of the aisle. Closed primaries incentivize radical positions, and lead to general election candidates that are unpalatable to the ever-growing independent voter bloc.
If you get the chance, go for open primaries. Better yet, go for a two-vote primary, where each voter chooses their top two choices. This should further marginalize radical candidates by moving the mean vote toward the middle of the political spectrum.
Hopefully, this November, and the candidates that will be at the focus, will lead to greater awareness of the need for a change in how we elect politicians; open primaries should be a part of that change.
