Not Radical Enough

23 July 2014

Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Schumer Backs Open Primaries

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has taken to the pages of the New York Times to propose a significant change to the way America selects its political leadership. He has backed the idea of an open primary rather than party-specific primaries. In other words, every candidate competes in a single primary with the top two finishers going head-to-head in the general election. It solves a few problems, but it won't really fix America's broken political system because it isn't radical enough.

Senator Schumer wrote "primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don't typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the'third of the third' most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote -- the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate, from voting in primaries at all."

Deep pocketed special interests and gerrymandering have rendered all but a few Congressional seats the fiefdom of either the Democrats or Republicans, according to the senator. By forcing all candidates to square off, he believes greater voter participation and a rush to the middle will result. The system is used in Louisiana, and California and Washington State have adopted it. Experience shows that such a system is, at best, a partial solution.

Any electoral system must reconcile a few different needs. Substantial participation is required to bestow legitimacy. That legitimacy also requires that the composition of the elected body mirrors to a significant degree the outlook and desires of the voters. Also, the resulting elected body must have sufficient cohesion to govern. Open primaries just don't measure up as a solution.

Far better is the multi-member constituency with a single transferable vote. It is the system for national elections in Ireland and Malta, the system used for choosing the Australian senate, and in local and European elections in Northern Ireland. STV in single member constituencies is used to elect the Minneapolis city council, and it is an acceptable alternative.

Candidates win election by securing sufficient votes to surpass the quota needed, not necessarily a majority. If 10 seats are available for example, roughly 10% of the vote is needed to secure a seat. Voters voice their preferences, ranking the candidates in order, and those with few first preferences are eliminated, and their voters are transferred to more popular candidates until the quota is met often enough to fill all the seats.

The effect is dramatic. Substantial minorities suddenly have a shot a genuine representation. Candidates with extreme positions can still win, but more moderate voices cannot be shut out by gerrymandering because that practice becomes impossible. Above all, ruling coalitions are established by negotiation after every interest group has had it say; currently, American politicians have to put such coalitions together and then hope the voters endorse it.

STV is not a panacea, but the current system is clearly broken, and unless and until the US adopts a parliamentary system (requiring a new constitution, which isn't going to happen), it offers the best possible way to boost participation and legitimacy while enabling the elected leaders to govern.

Senator Schumer has the right problem in mind, but not the right solution.

© Copyright 2014 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home

Google

Follow KensingtonReview on Twitter