Is An Open Primary System for Floridians?
Every week I deal with different subjects in this blog. I also post my blog to my Facebook page at RFrederickRiddlesWorld. This week I am taking a look at Is An Open Primary System for Floridians?
So what is an Open Primary?
Here in Florida they are pushing for One
Open Primary. My understanding of this is that a single Open Primary would
replace individual party primaries. The idea is to allow everyone the
opportunity to vote for who would represent the various parties. It would
appear that Independents could vote on who represents the Democratic Party and
who represents the Republican Party. Basically sometime in the future we may
only have one party rule. But isn’t that what they have in Russia?
Normally in answering a question like ‘Is an
Open Primary for Floridians’ I would
take a look at both sides, but I’ve noticed that the ‘Yes’ side already is
flooding us with their arguments. So instead of recapping their arguments I
will be looking primarily at the ‘No’ side, which in effect tells us what the
‘Yes’ side’s arguments are.
The following is just my opinion.
The
purpose of a primary is to select a candidate that represents a particular
Party
The whole idea of a primary is to select a man or
woman who best represents the party’s governmental view. We have Democratic,
Republican, Libertarian, Progressive, and more parties each favoring a
particular brand or theme. Historically speaking the party primaries have
served as platforms within a party for various political views vying for
control of the party.
In my opinion an Open Primary would dilute the free
discussion of ideas within a party. And I might note that the Open Primary
System is probably responsible for the dilution of representative democracy in
our country. In recent years we’ve seen a rise in the elections of demagogues
and others who use emotion rather than facts to carry the day. I think it is
not surprising that California is sending to Washington Representatives and
Senators who are more interested in camera time than in actually solving
issues.
An
Open Primary allows independents and opposition party members to influence who
the party’s nominee is
By having an Open Primary you allow people who do
not subscribe to the Party’s view of government to create an alternative view
thus subverting the Party Platform. This is contrary to the concept of parties
in general and to having a primary in the first place. Eventually this could
result in One Party rule!
Political
Parties are not private clubs; they are organizations representing a view
Private clubs are essentially social and restrict
membership whereas Political Parties are open to anyone who wants to join.
Someone who’s been a lifetime Democrat could switch to the Republican Party and
vice-versa. This has happened in the past and will in the future. It is our
right to change our minds.
Moreover joining a party makes a statement. For
instance, if you join the Democratic Party you join the party of leftist ideas,
rich Hollywood types, the filthy rich, and socialists. Or you can join the
Republican Party of rightist ideas, the middle class businessman, the middle
class worker, and those who believe in the right to succeed.
Open
Primaries hinder 3rd Parties
It would be pointless to join a 3rd Party if there
were Open Primaries. You join a 3rd Party because they champion a cause you
think is important. That cause loses out in an Open Primary System. In the long
term the Open Primary System will make it almost impossible to form a new
Party. Most of the 3rd parties currently existing I would have nothing to do
with, but I believe they have a right to exist and a purpose to perform.
An
Open Primary destroys the historical party system
Historically we have had at least two parties. We’ve
seen parties rise and fall with the times. We’ve seen parties change their
concept of government. We’ve seen parties start because of a cause (for
example, the Republican Party embraced the end of slavery). In an Open Primary
we might still have slavery; we might still have women without the right to
vote. In other words an Open Primary suppresses new views that don’t agree with
the dominate view. In the diluted primary where everyone can vote you really
don’t have a multi-party system because eventually it won’t matter. There will
be a single party.
We live in a country where everyone has the right to
have a view, the Open Primary campaigns as though it is what they want but the
opposite is what is achieved. Look at the states that have Open Primaries.
California, for example, is a Democratic state and most likely will remain so;
this is not always the case but it can become the case. Don’t look just at what
now is happening but look at the end result.
There
is no such thing as a non-partisan organization or person
Non-partisan means ‘not biased or partisan,
especially toward any particular political group’. This is essentially
impossible. Yes people and organizations claim to be non-partisan but take a
look at their record. If you do that you will find that while a person or
organization may say they are non-partisan their overall record favors one view
or another. It is the way we humans are. We get passionate about things!
The Democratic Party may have some
conservatives (back in the mid 1900s there were Conservative Democrats) but the
Party is still liberal and the opposite is true of the Republican Party. And
this is good for the country. People want to associate with people who think
like they do. And when they enter the public forum their views get expressed
and the Primary System is where those views are expressed, examined, and either
chosen or refused. But in the One Open Primary that is not necessarily true.
It is my opinion that the One Open Primary
concept favors the Liberal movement. It preaches one thing, but practices
something altogether different.
Independents
have the right to register with a party and vote in that party’s primary
Also the Independents have the right not to
participate in any party primary. In my opinion this is the stronger position
to be in. Because the nominee of the respective parties are going to have to
appeal to the Independents and bring along their constituents! Almost all
elections are that way.
Here in Florida Ron DeSantis won the Republican nomination for Governor by embracing President Trump and his policies. It drew in both existing and new voters who saw the President as one who championed the little guy and traditional values. But in the general election he had to reach out to others, which he did and without losing the Republican base. I contend this made him a better candidate and possibly a better Governor. In an Open Primary who knows who would have won the Republican nomination?
Open
Primaries don’t really force candidates to speak to ‘all’ the people
That’s a joke. Again using the Florida election, if Ron DeSantis had to speak to all the people, and the other candidates did this along with him, we would have ended up with a very weak candidate; probably one that never actually ran in the election. It could have been a liberal voted in by crossover leftists and liberal leaning Independents.
The Open Primary System may be why we get such weak candidates. These weak candidates try to be all things to all people, they give speeches against people rather than promoting ideas that will actually help. A good example of this is the movement toward socialism. Instead of honest debate on the merits and history of socialism it ends up being a raucous attack on honest working people and the promotion of ideas that have no chance of helping America but sound good to the uninformed. A robust debate would demonstrate this, but this won’t happen in an Open Primary System.
The above are my opinions based on 55 years of observations as a voting adult. Could I be wrong? Of course. You make up your own mind, but as you do you might want to revisit our country’s history. I contend that the multi-party system has served us well and that an Open Primary is a step toward one party rule.
A further thing to study is the current malaise in Washington D.C. where the Democrats still haven’t gotten over their defeat in 2016. Along with an Open Primary System they also want election by popular vote which our forefathers correctly saw as an evil to be avoided. Basically it allows a few states like New York and California to determine who our rulers will be.
VISIT MY AUTHOR’S PAGE TODAY: amazon.com/author/rfrederickriddle.
ARE YOU A BOOK REVIEWER? I am always
looking for book reviews. Whether it is Perished The World That Was (Book
One), World of Noah and the Ark (Book Two), World of Shem (Book
Three), World of Abraham (Book Four) or Death Ship (Book One), Pauline A New Home (Book Two), Task
Force Hunter (Book Three), or Black Death (Book Four), I value your reviews.
If you would like to review any of these books contact me at marketing@tr-indbkstore.com with the subject line indicating that desire. An example of an
appropriate subject line would be: ‘Seek to review [book Title].’ In the email
make sure to indicate your email address, your name, and the choice of copy
(PDF or ePub).
– – – – – – –
R Frederick
Riddle is the Editor of TR Writing
Services providing help to struggling and/or new
authors to write and publish their books. In addition he is the author of
several books and is best known for Christian Historical and Speculative
Fiction. For more information on him or his books visit his Amazon Authors Page. He is also
co-founder and Vice President of T&R Independent Books where his books are featured. To reply to any blog you have the
option of commenting on a blog and/or sending an email to marketing@tr-indbkstore.com. You may also be interested in his Facebook page at RFrederickRiddlesWorld.
