OP-ED: Reforming the primary election system can help stop polarization
Following the midterm elections, there was a brief period of optimism in the air. Voters rejected election deniers and extremist candidates in critical states. Observers held out hope that the center could hold and again become the norm in American politics.
The new year quickly dashed any goodwill engendered by the election and replaced it with over-the-moon partisan conflict in Washington, D.C. In the U.S. House of Representatives, any chance that rational debate could take place was quashed when far-right zealots were handed the leadership of important committees. Republicans have refused to remove one of their own, George Santos, from Congress for his abhorrent conduct in lying about his background and family to gain office. There are no plans to consider compromise legislation on abortion, immigration reform, gun control or the federal budget. Clearly, holding onto power has won out over problem-solving and integrity.
Both President Biden and former President Trump, and now former Vice President Mike Pence, are mired in investigations regarding the mishandling of classified documents. Denial, lack of transparency and attacking the other for similar conduct have undermined efforts to fix this problem. What should be a middling, procedural snafu has morphed into a legal nightmare for both political parties.
The single institution thought to transcend political power, the U.S. Supreme Court, has been degraded by political posturing and infighting among the justices. The court’s majority has moved to reverse long-standing decisions on abortion and other cultural issues.
In the streets of America, political violence is becoming almost as common as mass shootings. The United States Capitol Police is debating whether to reorganize to become more like the Secret Service. This would enable officers to provide around-the-clock protection for members of Congress.
In the words of poet William Butler Yeats, “When things fall apart, the center cannot hold.” I believe that, because of America’s dedication to liberalism, it is possible that the center can hold, notwithstanding our current distressing political environment. In simple terms, civic duty must replace gaining power as the fundamental goal of our government representatives. Officials must be elected that have no interest in controlling government to advance their singular ideological objectives. Government must return to being a level playing field, where pluralism provides protection from majorities and mobs.
Most Americans believe in liberalism without stopping to consider what this important political theory embodies. It is not a term that describes Democratic progressives. Liberalism is the flexible foundation of our Constitutional republic. It allows for the contradictory objectives of liberty and individualism, valued by conservatives, and equality and community, valued by progressives, to coexist at the same time. American liberalism was built on the foundation of property rights, honoring contracts and capitalism. However, those who value liberalism are always mindful that these economic principles can be abused and cause unwarranted inequality or discrimination. Liberalism in our democracy is constantly in flux. There is a continuing search for a grand compromise between individual freedom on one hand and human universality on the other.
A majority of Americans understand that a nation of 330 million individuals cannot be expected to agree on everything. The foremost role of government is to provide a framework to discuss our differences. Representative democracy provides an open forum for citizens who are ethnically diverse and who have different opinions on politics, economics and culture.
American democracy can never be an all-or-nothing proposition. If Catholic countries can compromise on abortion legislation, if poorer nations can find solutions to much-worse immigration problems, and if countries with appalling domestic violence can adopt fair gun-control policies, so can the United States.
Once liberalism is understood and championed by the voting public, the country should adopt voting laws that will enable it to proliferate. This would involve reforming the primary election system in America. Liberalism is set up to fail by primary politics that favor partisan zealots who place party and power above nation and compromise. In many primary elections, a minority of extremist party officials and their supporters choose like-minded candidates that end up in Congress. These partisan primaries disenfranchise Independent voters, distort representation and fuel anti-liberalism once the candidates are elected.
There are currently three methods for conducting primary elections:
Closed Primaries. In Pennsylvania and 12 other states, only those registered with a political party are able to vote in the primary. Fifteen states conduct semi-closed primaries. Candidates are incentivized to only seek the support of the partisan voters in their base.
Open Primaries. Twenty-one states employ an open primary system. Independent voters are allowed to vote in either party’s primary. Candidates must broaden their appeal beyond their partisan base.
Nonpartisan Primaries. Two states employ this system where all candidates run on a single primary ballot, regardless of party affiliation. All voters vote in the same primary election with the top two candidates advancing to a general election.
The nonpartisan primary model is by far the best at preserving liberalism. All voters’ voices matter, no matter which party has a registration advantage. More voters participate in the primary. The candidates elected in the general election are more centered in their positions. All states should adopt this primary system as an important step in electing non-polarizing candidates who can “hold the center.”
Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.