What do Idahoans want from our elections system? And how could we improve it? | Opinion

It is easy for Idahoans to go into each partisan election cycle expecting the same basic process. It is easy to not give it much thought.

But what if we did? What if we asked ourselves exactly what we really wanted from our elections? By this I don’t mean “who” we want, i.e., specific candidates, or even specific issues. I mean to say, what qualities of an election system should we desire or aspire to have?

Let’s get the first quality out of the way — I think I’m not too out of line to say that, of course, we all want elections to be secure.

But what do we want from the primary elections? Do we want every eligible voter to have ready access to the vote? Or only voters who have pre-registered with a particular political party, and according to that party’s selected process? High voter turnout means that there is a high level of “buy-in” to the outcome, which is healthy for our government.

Do we want a system where all of the candidates for a particular seat seek to engage with all of the voters of that district, regardless of the voter’s party affiliation? Or, on the other hand, are we satisfied with only hearing from party candidates, who we expect will usually speak mostly to the base?

Do we want every registered voter to participate in the primary so we get a better sense of what the populace wants? Or do we only want party-affiliated voters participating, and only if they are true party believers?

What about independents, who constitute a large portion of our Idaho voters? Do we want them to be able to participate in the primary without having to register in a political party? Or are we content with the façade every two years of independents having to “join” a political party just to vote?

Do we want to be able to consider all of the candidate choices in a primary? Or only those who self-designate as being party-affiliated?

Now, consider the general election. Do we want to have a meaningful competition in the general election? Or are we okay with extremely low general election turnout because the race has practically been already decided in the primary?

Do we want more choice in the general election? Or is it fine to have only one “party” choice, because the only other choice is a member of the other party?

Do we want the winner of the general election to be supported by a majority of registered voters? Or are we good with the winner taking only a plurality win?

It’s not sacrilegious to ask these questions — our election process is not etched in stone. It can be changed if we think we can do better.

I personally think we can do better. And I hope that our elected legislators and government officials have the courage to consider these questions openly, even if doing so may mean their loss in the next election. We should be all about improving our systems, not just insulating our offices or our political parties.

And after these questions have been asked, and improvements have been made, if we or our political party happen to lose an election, could that loss possibly say more about us and our positions than it does the system we have just improved?