In the state where I live, during the General Election, voters receive a ballot showing all candidates for office, regardless of their political party. If voters want to choose a republican governor and a democratic lt. governor, they may do so.
During Primary Election, voters must choose either a republican ballot or a democratic ballot before voting. This means that a voter’s choice for a candidate is dictated by the ballot chosen. Candidates from opposing parties are not listed on the voter’s selected ballot.
When I questioned the polling judge about this practice, I was told that this is done to deter voter “mischief” (voters are less likely to pick a candidate from another party in order to skew a close election, and more likely to vote honestly).
To me, this answer does not addres the question, does nothing to deter voter "mischief, and leads to undervoting.
When I questioned county assistance about this practice, I was told that it is simply the law in a primary election, it is a legislative decision, and that I need to contact my state representative to voice my complaint.
Do all states have this law in regard to Primary elections?
What are the merits of this law?
Who benefits from this law, voters or politicians?
It is not a general election, but a party primary, used to select party candidates for the general election.
And it is good for citizens, politicians, and election integrity.
Imagine the case of Massachusetts (it’s in the news alot lately). It is a heavily Democratic state, although there has been a Republican governer. Let’s assume that the current governer is a Democrat, and will be running for re-election unopposed.
The Republican primary contest is close, between a staunch conservative and a more moderate Republican.
Democrats going to the polls on election day may otherwise be tempted to enter the Republican primary, vote for the staunch conservative, knowing that the conservative will be less likely to prevail in the general election. Hopefully, there are enough closely-contested Democratic races on the ballot that would otherwise prevent this behavior.
Since the purpose of the primary is to allow the party to select their best candidate for the general election, it would not be wise to allow the other party to interfere with that selection.
I still don’t see how this law deters from voter mischief. All voters, democrat or republican as examples, are choosing their ballots at the polls. A previously registered democrat may still choose a republican ballot or a democratic ballot at the primary polls using bad intentions or good intentions.
Voters using integrity may still have preferences for candidates’ merits outside of political party lines. Office candidates still rely on this for gaining votes. However, once that line is drawn, voters only have the option of choosing a lesser candidate or simply not voting for other offices. Undervoting is as much of a problem as not voting at all.
To me, the party’s choice for the general election would not be lessened by a non-partisan primary ballot. The results from the primary are still the basis for candidate support in the general election.
What you say is certainly true, AZCowboy, but it leaves people like myself feeling disenfranchised. I refuse to register with either party; I rate each candidate individually. Therefore, I am left with deciding upon candidate’s only chosen among the party faithful, which has at times left me without a vote, refusing to support either candidate. While I can certainly understand how party faithful can taint the opposition’s primary, I’m still for open primaries, as I feel they better gauge the will of the people as a whole.
Well, but the purpose of a primary isn’t to judge the will of the people as a whole. That’s the purpose of an election. The purpose of a primary is for the party to decide who to endorse as their candidate in the election. And, parties don’t have to have nominating primaries. Some have caucuses, and some parties just name their candidates.
On a slight tangent, why are primary elections government financed?
I’m am neither a Republican or a Democrat, and in the next general election I might vote for a candidate not of either of those two parties. Yet despite that I am being forced to pay for, via tax dollars, the nomination of the candidates for these two large political parties.
While the two major parties are ingratiated into the governmental system, at heart they are private groups filled with people of common ideas that want a greater voice in government. I have no problem with people forming parties, should they so choose, however I do have a problem with the way in which the major parties have taken over government to the point where any opposing ideas are squashed, and they become tax-dollar funded public entities.
If the parties wish to nominate their own candidates, they should use a caucus instead. Of course this is just my opinion, YMMV.
In Pennsylvania, on Primary Election Day, you go to the poll and they give you a ballot for the party you are currently registered in.
So if you are a registered Democrat, you get a Democrat ballot. If you’re a registered Republican, you get a Republican ballot. You don’t just go up and ask for whichever one you want. They’ll even check the registration card (where I live) to make sure that you’re getting the correct ballot for your registered party.
So, I can see how this does prevent voter mischief and ensures that the primary does what it’s supposed to - allows a party to select the candidate they wish to see in the general election.
What is going on, in case it hadn’t come clear, is that the members of the political parties are choosing what candidates their party will run in the general election.
The reason it’s conducted by the government is that, by statute and Supreme Court decision (Nixon v. Herndon) it’s considered a part of the election process.
Note too that there is nothing stopping any party from having a primary – in fact, New York State some years ago had a primary to choose the candidate for some statewide office for the state’s Conservative Party. It’s merely that the two big parties are in most cases the only ones where there is competition for ballot space that means they’re normally the only ones having primaries.
In “open primary” states such as the OP’s, one gets to choose, on the spot, in which party he/she will cast a primary vote. In most states, only people who registered with the local Board of Elections as a member of a given party will be entitled to vote in that party’s primary.
You might want to check into Andy Jackson and the caucus system for a view as to why primaries are a good idea.