(may 2011 actually bring us increased voter choice… – promoted by eli_beckerman)

A radio host asked me on the air last month what I thought of a voting reform known as “Open Primaries.”  I didn’t have enough knowledge at the time to comment one way or another, but I followed up with some research and herewith offer to continue the discussion.

As I understand it, the ‘open primary’ that was referenced would place all candidates for an office on the same primary ballot and allow all voters to cast ballots in the primary, regardless of the voters’ or the candidates’ party affiliations.  The top two candidates in the primary would advance to the general election.  City elections in Massachusetts, which are non-partisan, are held in this way with a ‘preliminary election’ whenever more than two candidates for the same office secure a place on the ballot.  The ‘Open Primaries’ reform would amend the Commonwealth’s election laws so that races which are presently partisan would be administered in the same manner.

Reforms are most meaningful when they address a real problem.  I am unsure what the problem is that would be fixed by introducing Open Primaries as described by the radio host.  Certainly, the ‘problem’ we face now can’t be that there are too many candidates seeking office in Massachusetts.  We are already reading stories about how local Berkshire County Democratic Party leaders are discouraging a candidate from running in next year’s primary elections unless the seat is ‘open.’ Being burdened by an overabundance of candidates is not a real problem that the commonwealth faces in its partisan elections.

Although it was fashionable and possibly accurate to report in 2010 that a record number of candidates were seeking office in the state legislature last year – it was even front page news in the Berkshire Eagle on April 28, 2010 when it was apparent that all local State Representative seats were being contested – about half of the incumbent state legislators on Beacon Hill faced no primary or general election challenge last year.

The fact of challenges for elective offices in an election year should be about as newsworthy as the safe landing of a jet at Logan Airport.  However, with the democracy deficit we face, such events do make the front page.  What does an Open Primary system effectively change when there are fewer than three candidates for the vast majority of offices?

A more comprehensive and relevant voting reform for Massachusetts would be Voter Choice, which, if it were combined with an Open Primary philosophy, would eliminate the need for state primary and preliminary city elections whatsoever, while attracting more candidates.  The cost of upgrading our voting machines to accommodate such a system should be recouped very quickly if voting precincts no longer need to administer preliminary and primary elections.

With Voter Choice, voters would be allowed to rank any or all candidates on the ballot for a given office in order of preference.  If a voter’s first choice is eliminated in a first/preliminary round of voting then a second-ranked choice is counted, continuing with additional rounds as necessary.

As  a 2010 candidate I supported Voter Choice.  It is sometimes called ‘Ranked Choice Voting’ or ‘Instant Run-Off Voting.’   Although Common Cause did not include Voter Choice in its candidate questionnaire, I included it in the cover letter which I sent with it.

In 2009 the incumbent who was to become my election year opponent chose not to join me in signing a petition for Voter Choice, which was being circulated then for a potential ballot question.   Incumbents, for obvious reasons, tend not to support making changes to a voting system that has delivered them into power, especially if they do not feel that their inaction on the reform will cost them their seat.

I look forward to continuing the discussion with the radio host the next time I am on his program.