Open Primaries Versus a Nonpartisan Universal Primary

This November voters in Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho will consider whether to adopt versions of the “Alaska model,” discussed in this space herehere, and here, which does away with party primaries in favor of a single primary open to all followed by a general election that employs ranked choice voting (RCV). Alaska voters themselves will also vote on whether to keep that model, opponents having succeeded in submitting enough petition signatures to place a repeal measure on the ballot. And voters in Arizona and Montana will consider taking a big partial step toward the Alaska model by replacing party primaries with a single open-to-all primary, without resolving whether RCV or some other method, such as a runoff, will be used to sort out the results of a general election in which no candidate commands a majority. 

Advertisement

There’s enough material here for several posts. I’ll start by tackling just one question: how the open-to-all primary model differs from the so-called open primary model that’s been kicking around for decades.

Ed Morrissey

Pardon me if I'm not enthusiastic about any of these. Primaries should be within members of each party; general elections should be among the nominees or those who directly qualify for the ballot. And general elections should use the standard model of whoever gets the most votes, without runoffs or ranked choices. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement