Republicans that they consider fringe, anyway. Easier to beat in the general election. Claire McAskill has used it before, which I missed when it happened. NPR and WaPo are both reporting on the phenomenon.
It seems dishonest and anti-democratic in the extreme. I don't like the idea of pretending to be undeclared in order to vote in the other primary either, though I hear it has been done. Tactical voting makes me uncomfortable in general. Parties should nominate who they want without interference. I don't want the Democrats to nominate a crazy-bad candidate, but one that I think would be least damaging. One of these days it's going to go badly wrong, such as if a candidate dies before the election or has some major scandal knock them out.
Also, imagine the extension of this if it is successful even just a bit, of both parties putting money into opponents they think they can paint as dangerous - sometimes with good reason. Heck, you could hire stealth members of your own party who are actors and give them lots of money to run. In a primary with several candidates you start to get some real wild-card outcomes.
I can't see any way to forbid it that isn't even more anti-democratic.
5 comments:
Ha, ha. When I hear "fringe Republican" I think "non-establishment, populist candidate." I think they called Bernie Sanders a fringe Democrat until he had the Democrat nomination stolen from him.
I don't think cross-party donations is worse than what we have in California. California went to an open primary system where the two top vote getters in the primary election move onto the general election ballot regardless of party. So we routinely have only two Democrats on the ballot in the general election. The state claims it's more democratic but I think it's intended to keep minority parties off the ballot in the general election.
“…until he had the Democrat nomination stolen from him.”
Twice, arguably.
The problem with this strategy is that these fringe Republicans might prove more capable of winning than expected. Trump did, and Madison Cawthorn.
The question to the Dems would be how'd that work out in 2016, and even going forward?
Someone said, politics is a blood sport.
I find it eminently democratic. We aren't born with an R or a D stamped on our foreheads. The American system has tended to end up with two parties, but those parties have changed over time. The Constitution does not set out a role for political parties. There isn't anything undemocratic in a voter casting a vote for the candidate he wants to win a primary. Unlike Europe, we don't have card-carrying Democrats, Republicans, or Green-Rainbows.
My state allows people who are "unenrolled" to choose the primary they prefer to vote in. At one point, voting in a party's primary enrolled the voter in that primary, so the voter had to file a form to return to unenrolled status. In a burst of common sense, that was changed some time ago. Having worked the polls, my impression is that most "unenrolled" tend to vote for one party consistently, but they don't want the junk mail and annoying phone calls from politicians.
I don't respect the leadership of either party. So I don't have any confidence that the candidates they would prefer win the nomination of the voters are the best people for the job.
A system like democracy has to work whether or not the voter acts from pure motives or loyalty. Given the two party system, most voters are not devoted to any party.
As an aside, I find it silly when a politician decrees something "undemocratic" these days. Most of the time, it's an expression of dismay at the workings of democracy.
Crossing over to vote for a candidate you like in another party is something different. This is specifically helping a candidate you hate. that strikes me as something different.
Post a Comment