LESS DEMOCRACY NOW:

The Case for Partisanship (JOHN MOLLENKOPF, September 8, 2003. NY Times)

On the face of it, New York's Charter Revision Commission makes a good argument. The current system of party primaries, it says, prevents the three out of 10 voters who are not registered Democrats from participating in the primary that nominates the candidate who usually wins the general election. Opening primaries to all voters and candidates, it reasons, would lead to more participation, wider choice and more competition. Who could possibly object?

In fact, there is good reason to worry not only that the commission's proposed changes would not produce the desired results, but that it would also erode the principal virtue of the current system: the way it enhances the influence of minority voters.

First of all, opening the primary to all registered voters will allow the participation of those who are the least attached to a party. But these citizens are also the least likely to vote. Thus there is a strong chance that this change, although it may result in an increase in the sheer number of eligible voters, will lead to a decline in turnout rates, which are already low.

More important, by taking parties out of the primary, the proposed changes would put more emphasis on raising money and devising direct-mail campaigns and less emphasis on a candidate's party history and personal connection to the voters. This will promote the kind of candidate-centered, sound-bite-oriented politics deplored by thoughtful critics.

The political parties are private, not public, institutions, and should be allowed to make their own rules. There's no reason they should even have to hold primaries--though they might well, just on the theory that they produce stronger candidates. But if a party wants to pick a nominee in a smoke-filled room, what business is that of the government?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2003 12:24 AM