I threatened to register as a Democrat if Republicans elected Dave Williams as chair. They did, so I did. I realize that was two chairs ago, but that’s why I’m a Democrat, as often as I disagree with Democrats. I remain hopeful that the new GOP chair, Craig Steiner, can help right the ship; see Denver7’s recent profile.
I was reminded of the foolishness of party affiliation when I got my ballot in the mail and, as expected, got only the Democratic ballot. My wife, wiser than me in all respects and thus unaffiliated, got both parties’ ballots and so got to choose. (She told me she voted “against the wack-jobs.”)
Enter Courageous Colorado
Now a new organization, Courageous Colorado (which here I’ll call CC), wants to unify the primary ballot. But their proposed reforms, while a marginal improvement, are not courageous at all. Here I want to review the goals of CC and talk about what a truly courageous change would look like.
CC recently released a short ad in which a woman tries to order mint chocolate chip ice cream but is told her only choices are red or blue. The ad says choices are good for democracy and proposes “open primary elections” in which a voter gets to “choose the candidate you want for each office.” Clever, yes. Courageous, no.
Let’s look at some details. Landon Mascareñaz, CEO of CC, told 9News, “Every voter gets the same ballot during the primary season, and they can build the ballot the way they want. They can actually do a Republican for governor, a Democrat for attorney general, Green Party for a state legislature.”
Who’s behind this effort? 9News lists “the left-leaning Arthur Blank Foundation, . . . the right-leaning El Pomar Foundation based in Colorado Springs and a group tied to Kent Thiry, the former DaVita chairman.”
On its web site CC says some other states are moving in a similar direction: “California and Washington use a top-two system: the two highest vote-getters advance to the general, even if they’re from the same party. Alaska uses top-four plus ranked-choice voting in the general.”
CC Proposes: “Every voter . . . would vote on the same primary ballot. The top vote-getters advance to the general, regardless of party. Could be top two. Could be top four.”
Outlining truly courageous reform
I think CC’s proposal is better than what we’ve got, but only by a little.
A genuinely courageous reform, as I’ve said before, starts with the recognition that government has no proper business granting special recognition or privileges to political parties.
Government should not track people by party affiliation, list party on ballots, run or finance party primaries, or grant parties special ballot access, but should instead draft the same ballot-access rules for all comers.
The first problem with CC’s proposal is it does nothing to fix the ballot-access rules. Presumably any workable plan will involve candidates gathering signatures. However, I think it’s absurd that, in the internet age, we do not have any system for online petitions. If we need to modernize the rules, great; the point here is that the rules should be the same for every candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
How would parties deal with such a system? However they want! I can think of a couple of obvious ways that parties might respond. A party might decide, following the government’s ballot deadlines but before the primary vote, to endorse a particular candidate of theirs. Or a party might hold proceedings prior to the ballot deadlines to decide which of their members may pursue a spot on the ballot. But then it would be up to the party to impose penalties on defectors, like kicking them out of the party, and they’d get no help from government (beyond the usual available to all organizations).
If parties want voters to know which candidates are theirs, they are free to advertise prior to the election. If you object that a lot of voters rely on listed party affiliation when casting their votes, I reply that maybe the system I describe would encourage more-informed voting.
The second problem with CC’s proposal is that it doesn’t offer a good way to narrow the primary field to two candidates. The best way to do this is with approval voting. This just means that you may vote for (approve of) as many candidates as you like. Then the top two vote-getters move on to the general election. (I like the idea of printing “yes” and “no” next to every candidate for maximum clarity and minimum room for tampering.)
CC mentions California and Washington as models, but those states’ primary systems are stupid. Here’s the problem: In a field of three or more candidates, a system that allows a voter only a single selection can eliminate candidates who are widely popular but many people’s second choice.
Let’s say there are three candidates, Darryl, Roberta, and Umberto. Just over a third of voters prefer Darryl, just over a third prefer Roberta, but almost everyone either prefers Umberto or likes Umberto as their second choice. The California system eliminates Umberto in favor of two candidates with minority support. Approval voting advances Umberto to the general. The system tends to favor candidates who have broader appeal and who are less polarizing.
Obviously the current system is not working. Colorado politics are dominated by fringe ideologues and party insiders. Colorado voters deserve better. We deserve the separation of party and state.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.
