Adam’s Blog

That’s my thing, keepin’ the faith, baby. –Joe Friday

Party Before State

Posted by Adam Graham on February 21, 2007

I found Mountain Goat Report’s argument against closed primaries somewhat troubling:

Democrats need to have a presence in all legislative races before supporting closed primaries; with help from Dean’s 50 state strategy, rebuilding of the Idaho Democratic party should make a difference there.

This is a big opportunity for Idaho Democrats to win over some of those voters who are feeling disenfranchised by the Republican Party and are tired of one-party rule — and they are out there. This opportunity shouldn’t go to waste.

It seems to me that Mountain Goat Report is putting the Democratic Party ahead of the State of Idaho. “Yes, Closed primaries are best, but let’s hold off for political advantage.” Such partisanship explains why Dems remain in the minority. On top of that, I should point out that Republicans left many races uncontested as well, including the 2 State Rep. races in District 19, the State Senate, and District A in District 16. Should Republicans have to be competitive in these seats before we change the law? Put Idaho first and give us an honest primary system.


5 Responses to “Party Before State”

  1. No Adam, you misstate my position. I am against closed primaries, period. I am an advocate for Idaho to continue conducting open primaries as I feel that is best for Idaho voters. I am urging Democrats who do support closed primaries to look at the effects of that position on the Idaho Democratic party in hopes of persuading others to support open primaries.

  2. Adam Graham [Member] said

    Actually, what you wrote regarding closed primaries was, “Democrats need to have a presence in all legislative races before supporting closed primaries.”

    That to me indicates a support for closed primaries IF the Democrats achieve a benchmark. So either, you’re not making an honest argument or you’re not being very clear, or I’m right.

    Open primaries are the playground of people to sabotage other parties. It’s time to let Republicans choose Republican nominees and Democrats choose Democrats.

  3. I’d chalk it up to me not articulating my position very well. I am in favor of open primaries; not because of mischief, real or perceived, by either party, but because it does allow voters to remain independent and non-partisan if they choose.

    I can see how you would draw a different conclusion based on that one statement.

  4. I don’t see how closed primaries would have to leave out independents. You just set the law so independents can vote in either. OF course, I’ve known independents abuse that, too. I know a couple proud “independents” in 2000 who voted for the guy they felt their candidate of choice would have the easiest time beating, with the reasoning that theirs was a shoe-in and this was the best way they could “spend” their vote. So closed-primary advocates won’t like this solution as it leaves the door open to mischief, but it would be a fair compromise in a stalemate.

  5. Adam Graham [Member] said

    My ideal situation would be “Modified Open Primary” like Andrea said but I’d prefer closed to the current situation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: