A truly open primary.
Her ein California, the primary elections are partially open, in a rather complex formula. I still haven't figured it out, but apparently the rules about who gets to vote in a particulr party's primary is set by that party ... and yet the taxpayer foots the bill.
If I'm paying for it, I should be allowed to vote in it. So I propose the following:
At x time before the next primary, the CA Secretary of State (CASoS) publish an estimated cost of the election, broken down by how much for the general election (non-partisan offices, ballot measures, etc.) and how much for the primary part (cost of all those extra balots, plus a portion of the overhead costs). The report would provide a min-max range on these. The report would also detail voter registration by party as of x date.
Each party would compute its estimated share of the election cost as (registered voters%) * (max primary$).
If a party wished to have a closed primary, limited only to voters registered to that party, they would post a bond for the amount needed. If they did not post a bond by y date before the election, their party's primary would be declared open, and _any_ person, of _any_ party, or none, could vote in that particular party's primary.
After the election, CASoS would recalculate based on actual registrations on election day (NOT on voter activity) and bill the parties. If the CASoS was high in its first estimate, the parties would get refunds on their bonds. If CASoS was low, the state would keep the entire bond and eat the difference, since the first estimate would be treated as a maximum bill.
Now, I've heard people make the false claim that this is allowing double voting. It is not. The primaries are the political equivalent of preliminary heat races, or semifinals matches. A person can easily be a referee or judge in preliminary competitions, and still judge in the finals; since the outcome of any single preliminary race has no effect on any other preliminary race.
I think this would have a couple good results. One, the primaries would be more open. Two, the costs of the primaries would be shifted to those who benefit most by them.
Comments?
If I'm paying for it, I should be allowed to vote in it. So I propose the following:
At x time before the next primary, the CA Secretary of State (CASoS) publish an estimated cost of the election, broken down by how much for the general election (non-partisan offices, ballot measures, etc.) and how much for the primary part (cost of all those extra balots, plus a portion of the overhead costs). The report would provide a min-max range on these. The report would also detail voter registration by party as of x date.
Each party would compute its estimated share of the election cost as (registered voters%) * (max primary$).
If a party wished to have a closed primary, limited only to voters registered to that party, they would post a bond for the amount needed. If they did not post a bond by y date before the election, their party's primary would be declared open, and _any_ person, of _any_ party, or none, could vote in that particular party's primary.
After the election, CASoS would recalculate based on actual registrations on election day (NOT on voter activity) and bill the parties. If the CASoS was high in its first estimate, the parties would get refunds on their bonds. If CASoS was low, the state would keep the entire bond and eat the difference, since the first estimate would be treated as a maximum bill.
Now, I've heard people make the false claim that this is allowing double voting. It is not. The primaries are the political equivalent of preliminary heat races, or semifinals matches. A person can easily be a referee or judge in preliminary competitions, and still judge in the finals; since the outcome of any single preliminary race has no effect on any other preliminary race.
I think this would have a couple good results. One, the primaries would be more open. Two, the costs of the primaries would be shifted to those who benefit most by them.
Comments?