Comments on: Does the primary system violate freedom of association?

By: sue

sue — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:49:52 +0000

Jonathan writes: “I don’t understand why more Republicans don’t register as Democrats and vote for Al Sharpton in the primaries.” Well, some people do cross-register for strategic reasons. However, it would be hard to do this effectively without careful organization, and consequent leaks of memos and such. That and the enormous fraction who can’t be bothered to vote at all, and the assorted spin, slander, disenfranchisement and lies, and really the effect that worries you is vanishingly small. :) And of course, there are usually some competitive races in one’s own party/district, and voters probably care more for those than strategy. Non-local candidates, extremists and other undesirables are only nominated if the party members want them. Hmm. So Keith Vaz, Michael Portillo, etc. weren’t given plum constituencies, it just so happened that a majority of party faithful in those districts (but not in more marginal ones) spontaneously asked the nationally-known gentlemen to stand there? I’d blame my distorted view on periodic purchases of Private Eye, which gives specifics of local party preferences being crushed, but it’s reported the same way, with less detail, in the Guardian. Look, the UK system works quite well in the UK given its particulars, and the US with its different ones has a different one. And oddly enough, the biggest problems in each country are generally unrelated to candidate selection.

By: Jonathan Monroe

Jonathan Monroe — Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:55:20 +0000

Sue, In the UK candidates are not “given” seats – there is a vote of the party members in the constituency. In a seat the party expects to win, these selection meetings are extremely hard fought – a prospective candidate will probably visit every member (typically several hundred) personally at least once. Non-local candidates, extremists and other undesirables are only nominated if the party members want them. And increasingly national party organisations (which set the rules for candidate selections) are vetting prospective candidates to weed out nutcases. So what is the difference? In a British selection, only party members can vote – not all registered supporters. And since we can reject membership applications that means we preserve our freedom of association. Why should anyone who isn’t a Conservative have a say in who the Conservative candidate is? Membership dues are something of an irrelevance – the minimum rate for my party comes out at less than 10 USD a year. I don’t understand why more Republicans don’t register as Democrats and vote for Al Sharpton in the primaries. Under our system anyone who is actively against your party or has been in the past can be excluded from choosing your candidate. Viz-a-viz cost, the parties pay for the running costs of candidate selections, but the relatively small electorates mean that they are not very expensive. (john is right on here) If the Government offered to organise and pay for primaries I doubt any of the UK parties would take up the offer. I can see how views in the US might be different because of the Jim Crow history.

By: Jim Flannery

Jim Flannery — Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:46:18 +0000

I’m sort of amazed that I’ve made it to the bottom of this page without seeing anybody point out that Iowa, which is all over the election news at the moment, does not have primary elections. What is a caucus?

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:47:57 +0000

pssst, cafl, i think ophelia was kidding…

By: arbitrary aardvark

arbitrary aardvark — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:27:17 +0000

Some online resources include http://ballots.blogspot.com http://votelaw.com/blog http://electionlawblog.com http://www.ballot-access.org. The tradeoff between the party’s right of association and the government’s right to set up a democratic process is discussed in Tashjian. Jones was about blanket primaries (unco) rather than open primaries (constitutional). Presidential primaries are a different animal than state primaries. In the event of a conflict between the party’s rules and the statutes, the party’s rules usually win. The white primary cases, U.S. v Classic, Nixon v. Herndon, Nixon v Condon, are an exception. In my county in Indiana, a slating convention picks the candidates, who pay a large fee, who go on to almost always win the almost meaningless primary, and then run in gerrymandered districts. The primary is a reform from the progressive party in the 20s. It has public and private aspects, so election lawyers like me can usually find work arguing that the legislature has screwed up again in some manner. Currrently, special interests like common cause and public citizen promote unconstitutional election laws, providing full employment for those of us in the free speech community. We win some we lose some.

By: decon

decon — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:39:00 +0000

Ditto Yglesias. See J. Morgan Kousser’s “Colorblind Injustice” for a nice history of this trick & many more used to disenfranchise the freed slaves and their descendents.

By: cafl

cafl — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:48:23 +0000

I was just having a discussion with my husband remarking on the youth of most posters in the blogosphere, and strange effect of witnessing the effect of this lack of common memories. Ophelia, if you had been a young adult in 1968, watching the Democratic Presidential Convention, with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley running the show, white segregationists Missippians being seated instead of the delegation of black Missippians who had been excluded from the primary process (with the cry of free association) and with police beating anti-war demonstrators in the streets, perhaps you wouldn’t “long for a much more ‘elitist’ system in which the party picks the candidate and we idiot voters have no say in the matter.”

By: sue

sue — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:23:11 +0000

Ophelia writes: “And look at the results – the consequentialist argument, if you like. The primaries pick such abysmal candidates. I long for a much more ‘elitist’ system in which the party picks the candidate and we idiot voters have no say in the matter.” Sadly, it wasn’t that candidates chosen in the “smoky backroom” were elitist, or even that they were clever segregationists. Political criteria were no better back then, just that the audience was smaller and more homogeneous – core party members and contributors. Same promises, posterior-smooching and patronage, at least as much outright corruption, but no competition among interest groups presenting posteriors for smooching as we have now. Just the same sorry bunch of not-quite-dead white men, north and south. The Democratic primary was created in part because the party had no interest in pleasing some of its most vocal supporters – young hippies, war protestors and civil rights advocates. At least now a wider, more representative variety of idiots get a say in who runs. In an abstract version of UK vs. US party politics, I’d far prefer to have a say in choosing the candidate for whom I will most likely vote, though in an election run by the state, where anyone is free to register to vote in either party’s primary, without committing money or a vote in the general election for that party. The UK alternative is where candidates are given seats in districts of varying safety, whether or not they have a history with that area, know of its problems and/or assets. The thought that one is expected to vote for a candidate who might hold views extreme for his/her party, or be unusually unpleasant, because that would help give control of the Commons to that party – that seems really awful. Even though from what I can tell, your MPs are generally more thoughtful, articulate, competent and probably even more honest than most of our Congress. And of course we’ve all stepped on cockroaches smarter, more articulate, competent and honest than the current US pres…

By: Reimer Behrends

Reimer Behrends — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:04:02 +0000

Harry wrote: But, again, that’s because I think of political parties as free associations of individuals, not quasi-institutions of the state. I guess that’s the difference between the European and US conceptions of democratic participation. That would be inaccurate (or at least an overgeneralization). For instance, article 21 of the German constitution makes the political parties "quasi-institutions of the state". They are required to have an internal organization that conforms to democratic principles and to publicly account for their finances. The Law on Political Parties details their constitutional status and their rights and responsibilities further. Article 6 of the Spanish constitution and article 51 of the Portuguese constitution give political parties similar roles and subjects them to similar constraints.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:15:25 +0000

Virginia’s Democratic primary is coming up on Feb. 10, and, partly because Virginia voters do not register by party, it is open to all. Lyndon LaRouche is on the ballot, and it will be interesting to see how many people vote strategically for him.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:28:36 +0000

Now here’s the real question: Why do the political parties have privileged legal status in U.S. elections? In a special congressional election in California, they hold what amounts to an open free-for-all primary. If there is no clear winner, the top Democrat and top Republican face off in a second round. Now note: The top two candidates do not go to the second round. California’s districts are so gerrymandered and polarized that in many of them, two Democrats or two Republicans are likely to lead a first-round vote. Yet the two most popular candidates in such a district do not face each other. It’s ridiculous as a matter of logic and in practice serves only to contribute to our ludicrously polarized state politics. Sigh.

By: harry

harry — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:11:18 +0000

Depends on the level they are set at. Usually they are set low, but membership requires commitment to various ground rules—eg (in most cases) that you will not campaign agaisnt the parties candidates. ANyway, the American system is tilted a little toward the rich itself, no?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:05:24 +0000

Plenty of weirdos have cash to spare. Membership dues just keep the poor people out.

By: harry

harry — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:21:53 +0000

Thanks Robert for explaining all that, and also to others for the various kinks. Constitutional issues aside, I’m still inclined to think that it constitutes interference with the principle of FA, even though participation is ‘voluntary’, basically because its availability puts the non-participants at a big disadvantage. But, again, that’s because I think of political parties as free associations of individuals, not quasi-institutions of the state. I guess that’s the difference between the European and US conceptions of democratic participation. Matthew—presumably the reason that the Reps and Dems don’t charge membership dues is because membership is irrelevant to one’s ability to select candidates, and selection of candidates is the major determinant of policy positions, no? It seems to me a consequence of, rather than a background to, the primary system. Membership dues are one way of keeping wierdos out. Expulsion is another—I don’t know of a single party in Britain, for example, that would tolerate one of its elected officials supporting a candidate running against another of its candidates. Talk that way in Wisconsin and people call you a Stalinist. I apologise for calling W-T-A stupid without argument—I didn’t want to have that discussion here, and still don’t, so I’ll leave it to another post.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:09:32 +0000

Rob—Thanks! That’s more research than I could reasonably have expected, at the rates I’m paying. I’m reminded that in S. Carolina, apparently the parties have to pay for primaries themselves, and the cash-strapped Democrats flirted with the idea of commercial sponsorship. (This was all over the ‘sphere a ways back.)