Primary elections are beneficial, even essential, to an informed electorate

Burt Talcott

guest columnist

The recent U.S. election was a powerful political phenomenon — the peaceful transition from one administration to the next, after a long, adversarial election campaign. Our reaction is mostly pride or relief; political scholars throughout the world admire and envy our system. Contrast our transitions of power with the “elections” in Iran, Afghanistan, Honduras or Russia.

The reasons for our enviable electoral successes are clear, proven and worth sustaining against all opponents — domestic and foreign.

We are endowed with a representative form of government by our Founders; we achieve successful transitions through secret elections by informed, civil voters. How can we sustain this awesome phenomenon?

We must use what works! “If it ain’t broken, don’t monkey with it!” Beware of the motives of those who seek to destroy the most effective and revered political system in history!

Informed voters are essential to the continuance of our vaunted form of governance; ignorant, uninformed voters are easily mesmerized, misled. Political parties provide the information that informed voters need; they are known, utilized and respected nationwide — for good reasons.

Political parties are as essential as voters, candidates and issues to our constitutional representative democracy. Our two-party system (with two major adversarial parties, open to all) has served all citizens best for more than a century.

Our major political parties, through their active members, recruit, vet, develop, train, finance and promote prospective candidates in order to present the most qualified to the electorate. The parties also conduct educational workshops for voters and election officials, informational public forums, candidate debates; they sponsor voter registration and “get-out-the-vote” campaigns; they monitor elections and hold candidates and election officials accountable; they organize conventions and neighborhood “town hall” meetings to develop, hone and explain public policy positions.

All of these laborious, continuous functions serve the electorate in beneficial ways which the government, individuals and narrow special interests do not, and cannot, accomplish.

Primary elections serve to better inform the electorate and to encourage the parties to present the better candidate; to formulate and debate critical issues; to reveal and compare candidates’ positions and qualifications. Primaries provide candidates with valuable campaign experience; they provide early opportunities to challenge incumbents; they provide the “heats,” trials or playoffs to narrow the field of multiple candidates.

The nominating primaries and general elections have served our voters, candidates, election officials and political system quite successfully. Primary elections are the most useful function of our electoral system; they permit thousands of citizens to participate in the nomination process, rather than relegate nominations to a few closeted elitists.

Without primaries, individual voters have little opportunity or time for the necessary research to discover the backgrounds, qualifications, reputations and values of the diverse candidates.

No one is prevented from legitimate participation in primary elections. The major parties invite everyone to participate and contribute; the greater their numbers and the broader their policies, the more successful and influential they become.

Citizens who cannot find a place in a major political party can form a party of their own. Unfortunately, these are usually discontents or people with narrow special interest.

Some vocal malcontents affect a haughty indignation when they are not allowed to vote for candidates in two or more parties in a primary election. The requirement that voters select a single party ballot in primary elections is prudent and efficacious; it inhibits both the “spoilers” (schemers who “cross over” to vote for the weakest opposing candidate) and the classic “parasites” (like the lowly Mistletoe which lives off the sturdy Oak) who vote by “cherry picking” candidates from more than one party. They arrogantly and unethically claim some right to “spoil or sponge” by “picking and choosing” from the conscientious grist-work of the major political parties.

Such ballot manipulation often will result in the “accidental nomination” of untested and unqualified candidates on the basis of purchased name identification or of some extravagantly promoted narrow special interest or a candidate with more charisma than character.

Fortunately, ballot manipulation is minimized if a genuine two-party general election is assured. However, “top two” general elections, where both nominees can be of the same party, are intended to perpetuate the one-party rule in districts that are currently gerrymandered to favor incumbents.

Choosing between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum is not a real choice. All elections should be contested — not “greased” or “fixed” to favor one party. Even term limits will not break one-party dominance — with the resulting stagnation and corruption. Our electoral system requires continual robust, even adversarial, competition in ideas, policies and practices — particularly in general elections.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) was changed to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) because IRV was revealed as a gross misnomer; election results were actually delayed rather than “instant.”

RCV is still the same expensive scheme intended to destroy our traditional voting process. IRV was promoted in Pierce County by interlopers from San Francisco and Burlington, Vt. — the two most socialistic cities in America.

RCV should be repealed to save money (in personnel, equipment, paper, time and postage by as much as 50 percent), avoid election chaos and preserve our traditional primary/general election system.

Vote yes on Charter Amendment 3.

Burt L. Talcott is a guest columnist for The Peninsula Gateway. He can be reached at 253-851-7955 or by e-mail at burt@talcott.org.