TennesseeTicket.com

I respect the opinions of those who feel that primaries should be closed. Generally speaking, these are members of the two main parties--Democratic and Republican--who likely see no issues inherent in the fact that the primaries for these parties are held by public election, but that the nominating process for other parties, such as Constitution, Green, and Libertarian, are private affairs.

Allow me to suggest that all party nominating events should be private, and that when such is the case, each group would be completely free to include only those members who swear loyalty in whatever fashion deemed appropriate.

Until then, though, here's the deal: as long as Democratic and Republican primaries are public elections, then any member of the public should be free to participate in whichever one that person chooses on that day.

Here are a couple of examples that illustrate why nonpartisan registration and open primaries are best for now. First, in the Tennessee House of Representatives District 31 contest, the only two candidates running were both Republicans. But though they may number in the minority, there are self-identified Democrats aplenty in north Hamilton and Rhea Counties. Are these Democrats supposed to entirely sit out the election of their representative in Nashville?

Second, the number of independent voters in Tennessee is growing (citation needed). As one libertarian-leaning voter told me during the run-up to our presidential preference primary, as of now the reality is that the two major parties are going to name the two viable choices. Independents, therefore, need to be able to participate in that winnowing process, else the general election would hold nothing for us.

So, whether Republicans voted in the Barnes-Kurita race, or whether Democrats spoiled things for one-term Congressman David Davis--these questions are barely relevant. I challenge both parties to take their nominating elections out of the public sphere (and off the public dime). Perhaps we'd have five or six contenders in any major general election race, and the public--all of us--would choose among those candidates after the parties got through naming them.

And while we're at it, some sort of ranked voting system (IRV as one example) would help declare a winner among the half-dozen without the need for expensive runoff elections. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.

Much more on this topic, as related to recent events:

Sean Braisted: "I think the majority of people who cross over and vote in another party's primary do so because they want to have a say in who represents them, and that is a good thing."

Jama Oliver: "So, while a closed primary system has it's merits, there are a lot of ballot access problems that would need to be ironed out before I could support such a move in Tennessee." (II)

DeMarCaTionVille: "This is not about protecting the sanctity of the process. This is about a guy, who doesn't want to go down in history as the first incumbent Republican to fumble a 1st District election since 1932."

David Oatney: "The only way to enforce this notion is to close the Primary (something that has been advocated in this space on numerous occasions), because there is no way to determine voter intent where party loyalty is concerned without party registration and closed primaries."

Terry Frank: "We interviewed Congressman Davis on our radio program on election day and at that time, he was very concerned about the Democrats being so open in their support and electioneering for Roe."

Joe Powell: "Huge numbers of Democrats in the first district? Just over 6,000 took part in the Democrat Primary, compared to a low turnout of some 50,000 for the Republican Primary."

Knoxville Talks: "The laws describe an awful lot of steps to be taken *at* the polling place. It presents issues as to the feasibility of challenging each of those rascaly Democrats' ballots, as well as a problem of timing: namely that the law describes various steps to be taken in the event a challenge is filed *before* the vote happens, at the polling place."

Post Politics: "While Rep. David Davis is getting a lot of ink for his increasingly likely intention to challenge his election result, Tim Barnes wants us to know that he too believes interlopers affected the outcome of his race against Rosalind Kurita."

Hey – Just wanted to let you know that Election Protection’s hotline 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) went live August 12 and will be available now through Election Day with live help from trained volunteers for anyone with questions about their registration status and voting. It looks like volunteers are available 9-5pm EST to start.

The NY Times did a whole editorial about what the Election Protection coalition is doing. (Makes me think folks should program 1-866-OUR-VOTE into their phones.) Anyhow, here’s an excerpt from the Times piece:

“Groups that are committed to the right to vote have begun to fight back. Election Protection did invaluable work in 2004. It was a powerful advocate for voters when it counted the most — while the polls were still open.

“This year, Election Protection is already working with election officials trying to eliminate obstacles to voting. In November, it plans to have 10,000 lawyers, law students and other volunteers working around the country to help voters whose names are not on the rolls when they should be, to get polls to stay open late when there are long lines and generally to see that everyone gets to cast a ballot who is entitled to.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09sat1.html

It looks like a great resource.