I have a slightly different opinion on a recent (though not new) proposal to open up primaries to 740,000 independent and “unaffiliated” Pennsylvania voters to select a Democrat or Republican ballot on election day. Under the proposal, nothing would change for voters who are registered as either Republicans or Democrats. They would continue to be required to vote only on their respective ballots. Here is a recent article on the proposal:
Open primary voting in Pennsylvania? The state Senate’s top leader is floating a bill to allow it.
Most takes on this subject have to do with inducing higher turnout during primaries. Though concerning, my main problem is that all taxpayers including those locked out of the process entirely are funding what is essentially a private party process. This is because in PA county and state tax dollars pay the costs associated with holding elections. Obviously, it’s important for political parties to have the right to elect their own nominees. I’m not arguing against that. I just think that if large segments of voters are “locked out” of a public process it’s unfair to ask all taxpayers to fund it. This is the case today. In Lower Mac, for instance, over 3,500 registered independent voters are forced to help fund primaries through public tax dollars but are prevented from taking part in closed primaries.
How much does our closed primary cost you ask? Like with most items, the state of Pennsylvania has one of the most expensive systems in the nation with Presidential primaries costing over 20 million dollars. This pays for administration, use of buildings, contracts, and portions of salaries for publicly paid for employees, purchasing and maintaining publicly owned machines etc.
As long as the two parties rely on public taxpayer dollars to fund what is essentially a private function then yes, primaries should be opened up to independents. Now, if leaders from the two parties have an issue with that (in many ways understandable) then the two major parties ought to fund their own private internal nomination processes with private monies.
As long as we use public dollars to finance elections, everyone should be allowed to vote.
Consider also that many independents like me switch parties depending on who is on the primary ballot. If we have an open primary, this won’t be necessary and the numbers of those registered “no affiliation” are likely to swell greatly. Personally, I favor an open primary.
I lived in Texas for a decade or so, and Independents could vote in primary elections. I could pick the party ballot, and did so by “independently” choosing who I thought was the “best” qualified candidate, and, sometimes, someone who was so appalling, that I wanted to see anyone but them on their parties ballot. That is the essence of “independence” – freedom to choose with and open mind. And, given the open polls – things like referendums were open to all to vote on, and ensured that they could be voted on with valid full-community input. — Maximizing voting efficiency.