"Primary Principles"

By: Ingrid
Published On: 1/10/2007 2:32:16 PM

There has been much discussion lately about whether "to caucus or to primary".  Arlington Treasurer Frank O'Leary, in March of 2003, wrote this article for the Arlington Democratic Committee's monthly newsletter.  I re-print it here with Frank's permission.  Let me add that, were it not for the primary of June 2003, I could not have won election to Commissioner of Revenue.


Primary Principles

  The selection of its candidates may be the most important and controversial act that a political party must perform.  Traditionally, three different approaches have been employed: closed caucus, firehouse primary (or open caucus), and pure primary.

  The closed caucus (aka the GÇ£smoke-filled roomGÇ¥) is an insidersGÇÖ game.  Deals are brokered between those in the know, and the resulting selection process is structured to be lengthy, physically taxing, and contrived to discourage the common voter.  Participants must arrive by an appointed hour, the doors are then locked, and anyone leaving before the conclusion is denied reentry.  Normally, not more than a few hundred (usually exhausted) participants determine the outcome.

  The firehouse primary is a move in the right direction.  While selection of a candidate occurs at only a single location, those participating in the process are free to cast a vote, over the course of a day, and need not endure lengthy debates and procedural trivia.  As in the case of the closed caucus, the costs of renting of a hall, voting equipment, etc. must be borne by the party.  Thousands of voters determine the outcome.

  This brings us to the third possibility-a pure primary.  A pure primary takes place at all the established polling places throughout a jurisdiction, the same sites used for voting every November.  The costs of operating these sites are borne by the local electoral board, not the party.  The sites are in operation from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM, maximizing voter participation.



  If the above hasnGÇÖt sold you on the concept of a pure primary as a method of selecting our candidates, let me add the following.

1.  A pure primary is the most democratic method of selection, and we are Democrats!
2.  A pure primary tends to defuse charges that a special interest group dominated the proceedings and nominated a candidate not reflective of a majority of the party.
3.  A pure primary is GÇ£inclusive.GÇ¥  It increases the probability that members of minority groups will turn out and vote.
4.  In a firehouse primary, voters often are frustrated by a lack of parking and long lines and may decide itGÇÖs not worth it.
5.  It has been statistically demonstrated that Republican crossover equals less than one percent of the votes cast.
6.  A pure primary produces data which help us to identify the largest possible number of Democratic voters at least cost.
7.  A pure primary forces candidates to function in the same manner as if they were in a general election.  They must knock on doors, employ mass communications, and seek broad-based support.  In short, the primary becomes a form of boot camp, a simulation, a preparatory school.  If they cannot perform in the spring, what hope do we have that they will do so in the fall?
8.  Unlike closed caucuses or firehouse primaries, pure primaries permit voting by absentee ballot.
9.  Democratic elected officials are overwhelmingly in favor of a primary as a selection method in contested races.

Frank OGÇÖLeary
Arlington County Treasurer


Comments



A well thought-out and clearly stated diary (Dianne - 1/12/2007 8:29:40 AM)
Ingrid,  Thank you for an intelligent, clear, and convincing diary on primaries.  This post, like your others, is an asset for us readers. 


Thanks to Frank O'Leary (Ingrid - 1/13/2007 12:10:33 PM)
who gave me permission to re-print his article.


Yeah (Vivian J. Paige - 1/12/2007 4:22:09 PM)
Very good.