Last week's primary raised a recurring quandary for many South Dakota voters. Five legislative districts (Senate 30, 31, 34; House 26A, 29, 30, 31) had partisan primaries that decided the final winners. For instance, in District 31, Lawrence County, two Republicans ran for Senate and four Republicans ran for House, with no Democratic challengers. Republicans in the Spearfish-Lead-Deadwood-Whitewood-St. Onge metroplex thus chose for everyone in District 31 their next state legislators.
Kim Haug faced the same frustration in Rapid City's District 33... or she did until retired bomber Matt McGrath parachuted into the race at the last minute as an Independent. No fan of disenfranchising registered voters just because their party can't field candidates, Haug recommends changing our election system:
Whenever the winner of a primary contest would also be the winner of the seat, then the contest between the two candidates would be pushed to the November election for all voters to choose between them. If there were more than two candidates for one elected position, the regular primary election would determine which two candidates would be on November's ballot for all the electorate to decide, not just the members of one party [Kim Haug, "State's Election System Limits Voter Choices," Rapid City Journal, 2012.05.26].
Practically, Haug's proposal poses complications. In her district, for instance, we didn't know McGrath would give Haug and her neighbors an Independent choice until the Secretary of State stamped his petitions the day after the primary. The Legislature amended the Independent filing deadline this year: after this year, Indies must file about six weeks earlier, by the last Tuesday in April. This year, that would have been 42 days before the primary. However, state law requires the Secretary of State to print and ship primary ballots no later than 48 days before the primary. We thus would have to move the Independent filing date back further so the Secretary would know whether to print those primary ballots.
The logical change to make Haug's proposal work would be to set the same filing deadline for all candidates. I don't like making it harder for Independents to get on the ballot, but consider the District 33 Senate race. Rep. Phil Jensen campaigned there as if there were no tomorrow, only to wake up after his big win to learn he had to do it all over again. I'm no fan of the misogynist, Islamophobic earth-wrecking Jensen, but candidates of any stripe are entitled to know whether they can pour it all on in the primary or whether they have to stockpile some resources for the general.
Maybe if we're really interested in giving more voters more choices, we should give all candidates more time to file and shorten the election season for all of them. What if we adapted Haug's proposal to the new California plan? California adopted a new primary system in which every candidate of every party is on one ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the general election. This new system didn't boost turnout, but it may have led to more moderate candidates.
Consider applying this system to South Dakota. Give all candidates, partisan and Indy, until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. Any District 31 situations go straight to the general election. All other races hold a potluck primary on Labor Day, with the top two vote-getters for each seat advancing to the November vote.
When there's a primary in one party and no challenger from the other, the right to vote currently depends on membership in that one busy party. The barrier to obtaining said membership is low—go to courthouse, check box—but it is still a barrier not envisioned in our state and federal constitutions. Let's consider changes that give everyone more freedom to choose their leaders.
The problem is that the liberals jumped into the SDGOP, took it over, and thereby there is nobody left to run in the Democrat Party. Perhaps Democrats need to learn that the conservatives are their friends and start inviting us to run on their ticket.
I think people should be able to organize political parties and should be free, as members of their parties, to choose their own candidates to stand for election.
To force primaries open and thus dilute the voice of party members in choosing their party's candidate diminishes that freedom.
This is a solution in search of a problem. All political parties in South Dakota are free to nominate candidates for election. There is no legal nor structural barrier to entry.
Thus, it's unnecessary and wrong to say to members of party A "Oh, you folks didn't field a candidate for this contest? No sweat, we'll just let you help choose party B's candidate."
Sibby, neither party is true to it's founders or moral mission. Of course it is a moving target but now with the outside money now running things, we the people no longer have the ability to own any part of the current process.
.
I look at the GOP and Dems and believe they are both owned by the banks and corporations. The TeaBaggers and Occupiers are leaderless and without mission. The T's and O's are one and the same with different ways of looking at the system fix.
.
The California primary system will continue the destruction of the voice of people. Cory's discussion of the possible moving single party two choices to General election is interesting. It still allows the party system and may encourage a third party system growth.
.
Maybe it solves Sibby's concerns about Dems and GOPs masquerading.
Teswtor15, the tea-baggers are not leaderless. They were founded by Dick Armey, disgraced Speaker of the House. Their funding comes from the Koch boys, Karl Rove's donors, and others of similar right wingnut positions.
I haven't heard anything about the Occupiers getting any outside support. Anyone else have any info about that? They seem to be too independent and purely democratic to take anything from anyone.
At the local level in South Dakota the Tea Party are as democratic as the Occupiers.
In any event, not really to the topic of the post.
Aldo: "...you folks didn't field a candidate...": to what extent does that accurately reflect what happens? Is the typical registered Democrat on the street responsible for the local Party not recruiting a candidate? Does that failure justify disenfranchising all of those registered Democrats from the final choice?
Consider Sibby's primary, and imagine Quentin Berg hadn't been waiting to fly the Dem colors in the general. Does the Sibby-Vehle contest really represent the GOP picking its candidate? Or is Sibby so outside the party that we might as well have a general election in that case?
What if we got rid of all state recognition of partisan primaries and left them to operate, as with PUC nominations, entirely within the party? Would the Haug system really proscribe any party from getting together in the spring and designating one individual as their candidate?
Cory,
In Republican heavy districts, is the typical registered Republican on the street responsible for the OTHER party not recruiting a candidate? Does that failure justify diluting the say of all those Republicans from choosing their nominee? No, of course not.
I disagree with your use of the word "disenfranchise" here. No one's rights are violated. Rather, some voters signed up for a party which decided not to compete.
Yes, in that case, the Sibby - Vehle contest does represent the GOP picking their candidate. Those two stood for nomination within their party's process.
Were party recognition to cease, the Haug system would be moot as primaries or nominating conventions would have no meaning.
There's a lot here, Aldo, and I'm cooking. ;-) Let me address just the disenfranchisement issue. Suppose we had a double whammy: in 2014, suppose Lawrence County Dems are still no-shows, and Tom Nelson runs for revenge against Bob Ewing. But in the U.S. House, Noem, Rounds, and everyone else shoot for Senate, leaving no Republicans trying to unseat Varilek. But I run against him in the primary, because I'm pissed he hasn't fully supported President Obama's newly revealed Marxist revolution. Now Dist. 31 voters have to pick. They have to forfeit voting in one of those races. Is that disenfranchisement? (Whoops! Spaghetti boiling!)
I think it's important to note that Kim's idea only applies when there are no opposing candidates in a given primary. It's a "contingency" idea designed to encourage maximum democratic participation in state and local government. It's also important to not that we already have races along these lines that are non partisan in which everyone is allowed to vote regardless of party. Judge and Mayorial races for example. Aldo likes to argu, and hes good at it, but a lot of the arguments he makes here miss the point. Do we want more democracy and voter participation or less? Do we want South Dakota to be more like a parliamentayr democracy where one party rules, or do we want the people to choose heir candidates regardless of party? A simple fix would be for those who want to exercise the franchise to simply switch parties in order to vote and then switch back again. But that stries me as being not all that great for the two party system.
All that said, no one is saying anyone is breaking the law, Aldo, so there's no need to be defensive about that. And no one is saying the current system is fatally flawed and not without options. We're just exploring whether or not it can be improved in such as way as to allow more people to have a say as to who their elected officials are.
...sorry about the dogshit typing... I'm cooking too and don't want to burn the burgers.
They smell great, Bill.
I did not know that you were considering a run for House Cory.
All buffalo, grudz. Want one?
You know I do, but last time you snatched it back at the last minute. Plus, I already had my can of soup for the evening, but next time I'll bring you the bison burger and some fresh colored peppers with some 10-15 texas onions to grill up with them.
Cory,
No.
Bill,
I'm not being defensive nor much concerned with anyone breaking any laws. Rather I'm concerned that people's rights to freely associate not be diminished - even in contingency situations.
Really? In the situation I posit, qualified voters find it impossible to vote for one of their elected officials. Am I using the word "disenfranchise" incorrectly?
Good to hear, Aldo. Then I assume you oppose efforts to ban unions from organizing in SD and restricting their rights to choose union representation any way the please?
It's perhaps a tangent, and yet perhaps not.
SD recently passed a law guaranteeing people the right to cast a secret ballot, essentially banning all other forms of voting. As per Cory, what is it when the majority of voters are prohibited from voting for an elected official if not "disenfranchisement?"
Do we want more democracy and voter participation in South Dakota, or less?
Do we want South Dakota to be more like a parliamentary democracy* where one party rules, or do we want the people to choose their candidates regardless of party?
______________________________
* http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1384209/parliamentary-democracy
uh, fellers? SD doesn't want any more voter participation or it would be happening.
What part of Kubler-Ross do you not understand?
The suicide part, Larry.
Bill,
There is no prohibition from voting in current law. Everyone is free to form and join political parties and to act as members of those parties. There are differences in strength between the two parties in different regions which result in open seats for certain offices. That's not a situation that calls for a statuary attack on people's right to associate. That's a situation that calls for less popular parties to work to increase their market share.
Hang on, Aldo. The Haug proposal doesn't look like an attack on people's right to associate. Suppose we implemented the time frame I outlined above. The SDGOP and SDDP would still be perfectly free to get together before the candidate filing date or before the primary and endorse one person as their official party candidate. Stephanie Strong, Jeff Barth, and other folks who register as party voters but aren't really party insiders are still free to run with their party tag on their name (which in a way is part of their freedom to associate... but just not associate as much as some others with the organization!).
Under Haug, the party doesn't disappear. The party can still make clear its choice. And voters (all voters!) can still affirm or reject those choices. Who loses under that system?
Party members lose.
Again, your confusing the consequences of being an unpopular party in a certain district with disenfranchisement.
Disenfranchisement demands a legal fix.
Unpopularity is a function of voter choice.
Party members lose either way, Aldo. That's the point of the discussion.
No, Aldo, I don't think I'm confusing the two. Does the fact that a party is can't get traction justify making them ineligible to choose who represents them in government? The current system seems to ask members of unpopular, weak-recruiting parties to sacrifice either their right to associate (or not associate) or to vote in the final, binding election of their public officials. The Haug system doesn't preclude party association and activity. Haug just prevents one party's dominance from excluding other parties from exercising their constitutional right to vote in a general election.
No Corey, Haug's idea is about primaries, not general elections. She would eliminate primaries in certain cases. That's not warranted by any legal barrier to vote and thus is an unfair dilution of some voters' right to associate in a political party.
Bill,
It's one thing, and perfectly valid, for members of a political party to lose some choice based on the popularity, or lack, of political ideas.
It's an entirely different, and wrong thing, when the law is used to bully people as Haug's idea would.
And, before the hand-wringing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth starts, understand - I'm not calling Haug a bully. I assume she's a wonderful person. I also assume her intentions (see paving stones - road to Hell) are good. But, the net effect of her plan is to bully certain voters.
OK, thanks for the scrimmage, I'm off to the rodeo. You should all do the same - Crazy Horse, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 2:00.
See ya, Aldo. Have a splendid weekend, bro.
Enjoy the rodeo. I'll throw this out for anyone else interested in taking up the gauntlet: I don't think the Haug plan would use the law to bully parties or erect a barrier to their efforts to choosing their candidate. But it does step in and make a distinction between the preliminary choice of a candidate and the final choice of an elected official.
And just thinking about primaries, aren't we doing parties a great favor by conducting their candidate selection process for them? Our public dollars print the primary ballots and distribute and count ballots statewide. Or could we interpret current law the other way by saying we bully parties by forcing them to conduct their candidate selection process in one specific way, through a public primary, rather than permitting them to caucus or select candidates in some other way suitable to the active membership?