As voters head to the polls in our area on Nov. 4th, many will be surprised to learn that some of their local races are uncontested.
In Bedford, five local offices will have only one candidate on the ballot. With concerns on the rise about threats to democracy, a lack of competition at the local level is not one of the topics that gets much ink or airtime. The primary reason for this lack of choice is a lopsided voter registration advantage, making most towns effectively one-party rule. Add to that increasing partisanship, which makes it very unlikely a voter will cross the aisle to vote for a candidate in the other party. That trend is new in the last couple of decades. The days of the “ticket splitter,” who was willing to vote for candidates in more than one party, are apparently over—going the way of the Princess phone.
In the current system, the local party nominates the candidates who will run in a primary. Primary voters tend to be more extreme than general election voters, which frequently produces candidates who are not mainstream. The parties themselves frequently put their thumbs on the scale to ensure their preferred candidate checks all the right boxes.
Current realities are ironic, since the fastest-growing political affiliation in America is independent. Not that being independent is a party at all, but rather an active choice not to join a party. Increasingly, folks are turned off by each of the major parties. Forty-three percent of Americans identify as independent, the highest total in recent memory.
These days, around here, the primary is the whole game, since increasingly there is no opponent in November. You can forget the Washington Post’s tagline, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Democracy actually dies in June when the primaries are held and 90% of the electorate doesn’t participate.
A system that shuts out 43% of the electorate from candidate selection isn’t a very democratic system. There is a solution: open primaries. The simple concept of an open primary is that anyone, regardless of party registration, can vote in a primary. New York, a progressive state in many areas, is actually quite Neanderthal in its approach, with a closed primary system. Only 13 states and the District of Columbia still use fully closed primaries, allowing only registered party members to vote in their party’s contests, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In New York, your party registration is public and easily accessible—by neighbors, potential employers, or anyone who wants to look. That’s a fact that, unfortunately, carries more weight today than it once did.
Letting anyone and everyone vote in primaries would force candidates into platforms and policies with broader appeal to a larger cross-section of the electorate. The current system ensures November candidates who are out of step with general election voters, resulting in unanimous town boards that don’t represent a significant plurality, if not a majority, of their constituents. In addition, voters lose interest in the general election.
There is also the issue of basic fairness. Why should registration in a party give a voter two votes per year—one in the primary and one in the general election—compared to an independent voter who only gets one? It strains the concept of one man (or woman), one vote. I guess everybody’s equal; it’s just some folks are more equal than others.
It’s time for New York to move out of the Stone Age and let independents vote and participate fully in the candidate selection process. It is a matter of fairness and an integral part of a well-functioning democracy. The rest of the country is way ahead of us. Some states are solving the problem legislatively, while others are fixing it through litigation. I suspect any progress in New York will come through the courts, since the legislature has proven time and time again that it will wring every last drop of partisan advantage from its lawmaking.
As I was finishing this column, I was disappointed to learn that the New York State Court of Appeals had upheld the legislature’s even-year voting law, referred to as the EYO. With all my hope for making local elections more about local issues and increasing independent participation, this ill-advised law—which is an obvious partisan power grab—will only make matters worse. It will move all local elections to even years, so the local highway superintendent and other community offices will appear on the same ballot as the president, governor, senator and congressman. Party and tribe will inevitably overshadow local concerns for voters. I can’t quarrel with the courts; this is not an issue for them but rather for the legislature. The goal should be to increase participation and, more importantly, public knowledge and interest in local affairs. This wrong-headed partisan maneuver does exactly the opposite.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here