Our founders let the people control government. Why should parties own the primary? | Opinion
On July 4, 1776, 56 men declared in writing that governments derive “just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that it was the “Right of the People to alter” government if it became destructive to the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thirteen years later, 55 delegates framed our government as the original declarants had said, establishing it on behalf of “We the People of the United States.”
Our people-centered government established by these documents is beautiful and inspired. By way of contrast, systems placing the mechanisms of government and elections into the hands of political parties — as opposed to the people — were not envisioned in our founding documents and were abhorred by the Founders.
Yet here we are, our elections governed by a party mechanism and not one of the people. The result keeps hundreds of thousands of people out of one of the basic selection processes — the primary — and helps to divide and factionalize society and government. And the mark that process of division has left on us all is unmistakable..
It doesn’t need to be this way. The current Open Primaries Initiative moves the focus of elections back to where they should rightly be — the people.
For instance, instead of our current “party primaries,” the Open Primaries Initiative creates one “people’s primary,” allowing “all candidates” to appear on the same ballot, “regardless of party affiliation.” The top four candidates from the primary advance to the general election. Instead of only allowing certain voters to participate, it allows “every qualified elector” to vote.
When primary elections are open to all qualified electors, the focus changes. Instead of simply seeking support from the political party’s base, the candidate suddenly sees all qualified electors within his or her district as equally important to making it to the general election. No voter is less important than another, regardless of ideology or affiliation. Each voter starts being heard, and issues start to matter more than party affiliation.
The current state of the general election frequently feels like a fait accompli, i.e., like it’s basically already been decided due to party affiliation (which can be especially hard if your candidate lost in the primary). The Open Primaries Initiative modifies the general election by introducing more choice — giving the people up to four candidate choices instead of two. And it further gives people the ability to rank those choices if they want to do so.
The result is a vibrant, interesting general election — something we rarely see in Idaho. And ranking candidates, while optional, isn’t complicated. It encourages the voter to learn more about the candidates and gives the voter up to four opportunities to affect the result. When voters can rank every candidate, the result is a winner who enjoys support from a broad coalition of voters and not just from a narrow faction or a singular political party.
This process puts the people first. It recognizes that people — and not factions or parties — are the foundational bedrock of our society and government. Political parties will always have an essential function as a place where like-minded people can gather, support candidates for office, and seek to persuade the people on issues. But we the people make the decisions. We the people elect our representatives. We the people should control and be the focus of our elections.
The Open Primaries Initiative gives Idahoans the unique opportunity to change our elections toward a more people-focused system. I encourage all Idahoans to sign the petition to put the Initiative on the ballot for the people’s consideration.