Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power
POINT
Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents.[1]
By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems.[2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.
[1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/09/prop-14-s-winners-and-losers.html
[2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010,
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/open-primaries
•••
Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices
POINT
Open Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration.
In safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer.[1]
This can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process.
[1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/11/local/la-me-cap11-2010feb11
•••
These are 2 points from a pro-con site. The counterpoints were not strong enough to convince me. Only 2 parties control all levels of our gov't. These are increasingly polarized so that moderate voices, and officials who are more willing to compromise are locked out.
In the general election, a large percentage is forced to choose between candidates for whom they had no voice in selecting. If we are to truly be democratic, why should only powerful party machines be allowed to rule the process of choosing those whom will govern all?
This House believes that open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for elections | idebate.org
http://www2.idebate.org/debatabase/debates/politics/house-believes-open-primaries-most-effective-method-selecting-candidates
•
= new reply since forum marked as read
