We’re in the midst of primaries and caucuses in the run to the November presidential election. It’s a tremendous learning opportunity for all. What I’m finding most interesting is the lack of discussion of results from open primaries vs. closed primaries. In the mainstream press the difference is generally dismissed as meaningless. If so why did the Alaska GOP sue to win the right to a closed primary? And why are Hawaii’s Democrats considering the same action?

Generally, inclusiveness is considered a good thing but when it comes to choosing a candidate for public office should Democrats be allowed a vote in choosing Republican candidates? Or visa versa? Sounds like a good research project for a high school civics class. (For the record: I think primaries should be closed.)

Today is Michigan’s primary, an open primary where anyone can vote for the Republican nominee. Only Senator Clinton is on the Democrat ballot and Democrats are being encouraged to vote for a GOP candidate. Will Dems vote for a strong Republican candidate or a weak candidate that would be easier to defeat in the general election? If there is a large Democrat crossover vote how should the results of the GOP primary be interpreted? Is that candidate the legitimate choice of Republicans? Will he be able to add to his delegate count over the long haul? After all, the candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination at the convention not the candidate who wins the most primaries. New Hampshire was an open primary. How does Senator McCain’s victory look in light of a large Democrat crossover vote?

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website