by Robert M. Traxler
It has been a bit of time since we talked about the whys and whats of our political process becoming more left and right of center.The American Constitution is silent on the subject of candidate choice, leaving it up to the individual states, which have developed their own processes over time. New Hampshire was the first primary state starting in 1920. Some states use a primary election, while a few choose a caucus to select candidates.
The primary concept is designed to get the process out of the “smoke-filled back room,” where in bygone days the party hierarchy smoked cigars, drank alcohol and picked the candidates. The party bosses would choose, and not the majority of the party members. Moving the selection process into the open with more fairness is the goal of the primary system.
Let me start with the statement that I don’t know of a process that is better than an open primary, but it is a flawed process with an unintended outcome.
In the general election, from 40% to 60% of those who are eligible vote; in the primaries 28% of a much smaller pool of eligible voters show up and vote. The universally accepted number is around 5 to 10% of the voters left and right choose the candidates for the general election. The number is even smaller when we have a strong field of candidates. It could be as low as 3% or even less; only the most radical should apply.
As we dissect the voter pool for a primary, we find the most dedicated, radical and enthusiastic of us on the two sides of the process show up to vote. A candidate must be pure in belief in socialism or capitalism during the primary. In my lifetime, every candidate for office ran far to the left or right in the primary, but once they got the nomination, they ran as fast as they could to the center.
The primary system has caused us to consider folks for office who are “radical” in thinking to the other side. A person who believes, as Karl Marx did, that some capitalism and private ownership was a necessary evil, especially in the development of a classless society, would not make it in the Democratic primary. Conversely an advocate for even more government control of the economy would not stand much of a chance with Republicans.If we look at the current stable of presidential candidates for the left-wing party, we find all are pretending to be far left of center. If we look at the candidates for the right-wing party, in the last Republican primary election the most successful were the ones who were pretending to be the most right-wing. The primary system has driven a stake into the heart of our nation; left and right, we find no room for a middle of the road candidate.
A person who ran for trustee in Dorr Township campaigned on being “100% pro-life.” OK, what a trustee in Dorr has to do with the abortion issue is beyond common sense. The candidate went on to unlawfully audiotape his political opponents, not an action most approve of.
The goal of his campaign was to cater to the right in the primary. Most candidates take a stand on things they have or will have no control over, even if elected, just to appear strong on the partisan base issues.
The advent of the electronic news industry has exacerbated the polarization process; we all can go to news outlets that are partisan, mostly on the left, but a few on the right as well to confirm our views.
As the editor of this esteemed publication has stated, Fox News and MSNBC are extensions of the political parties, and he is correct. Fox News has a much higher viewership, but MSNBC competes with CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and others for the left-wing viewership. Folks who want to view the socialist take on the news just have more outlets, so Fox has more viewers.
Things will get worse before we wake up and embrace compromise, the very concept on which our democracy is based.
Not always. I had to beat primary opponent in 2018 for the chance to get crushed by Rep. Mary Whiteford in the 80th State House District. My opponent got endorsed by both Planned Parenthood and Saugatuck Mandate. I took moderate positions on guns and basically avoided the choice issue. Beat my fellow Democrat by over 20 points.
Mr. Ludwig,
Thank you for the comment. You are correct in stating “not always” in the vast majority of the primary elections the middle of the road folks get run over.
Thanks again.
Army Bob
It’s always been my contention that County, township and city / village candidates for office should never have a party after their name on the ballot.
As you have said at these local levels they are really not able to change State or Federal issues.
If anyone one has noticed some townships all their officials have one party affiliation after their name. .. but for years it was the other party .
Not being able to vote straight party would be a great help on the local levels. Than the voter would have to learn something about each candidate, in order to cast a informed vote, not one along party lines.
If I as a candidate running for local office ( County, township, village/ city ) can not declare a party. I would then have to be judged on things I have a better say in. If I want better roads, more dust control, improve the parks, cemeteries, improve or relocate offices or library, increase salaries, add additional emergency services etc. Than as a voter, you would realize that even if only one of these issues are something you favor…..your taxes will probably have to be raised.
If by chance I as a candidate promise to not raise taxes but remain at the current status….than you as the voter would expect me to vote no on every issue that may require additional taxes.
Sadly, it does not operate this way…
If I were to be a candidate in the next election…there are at least three issues I would favor, but you may have to pay more taxes…..
Just think that over ( no need to reply) but would you honestly vote for me knowing you may pay more taxes????