Open Primaries or Closed Primaries?

Chuck Schumer of New York has published an article about how this country needs to trash the primary voting the way it currently sits and go to an “open primary”. I will admit, when I read the headlines I thought it had merit. But as I read the article, which can be found in the New York Times, I liked the idea less and less.

Here is an excerpt from it:

We need a national movement to adopt the “top-two” primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff. This would prevent a hard-right or hard-left candidate from gaining office with the support of just a sliver of the voters of the vastly diminished primary electorate; to finish in the top two, candidates from either party would have to reach out to the broad middle.

Here is my initial problem. This idea doesn’t allow for a varied view for the most part. If you live in a “red” state or a “blue” state, you are likely to nominate two from your color. This doesn’t allow for opposing views to get on the ballot.

Let me put it in other words….

If John Q. Public and Susie Society are both from the same party and their state is aligned with that party strongly, the opposing views will get shut out. I like open primaries if you can go to the polls and not declare a political party. Put them all on one ballot and you select the candidates you want to see go further into the political arena.

There are over 260 comments on this article and I just read a few but I tend to agree with Omnipresence when he/she says:

Mr. Schumer’s suggestion would only further reduce voters’ choices, and would only make it harder for those not in the mainstream of American politics to be heard.

Thoughts?

The opinions in this blog belong to Tom Knuppel