Politics
DC primaries should be scrapped
Come the night of September 14th, DC's primary election day, the identity of the city's next mayor will be known. Barring some last minute write-in campaign, most campaigning will slow to a trickle and the victor will engage in a two month victory lap till November.
Photo by John C Abell on Flickr.
This is true because of the District's overwhelming Democratic population. Once the party has decided on a candidate, no other contender has a viable chance in November. Democrats generally defend this system and say, hey, it's not their fault that the Republicans and Statehood Greens can't field a candidate with a real shot. And they're right.
But nonetheless, DC's primary election system has no legitimate purpose and should be scrapped in favor of an instant run-off voting system for the general election.
I can only think of a few legitimate purposes for a primary election, and they either don't or shouldn't apply to DC. First, a primary allows a party to unite its resources around a single candidate in order to wage a general election campaign. In DC there is no general election campaign. Either Gray or Fenty will win the primary and then mail it in for the next two months.
Second, a primary allows a party to unite its vote around a single candidate so that a "spoiler candidate" doesn't split the party and allow another party's candidate to win. Whether or not this was ever a legitimate goal, it simply wouldn't apply if the city were to adopt a preferential voting system.
The most compelling reason to scrap DC's primaries is enfranchisement. This is because even though the primary election is the de facto general election, there are always more District residents that show up for the actual general election. For instance, in 2008 the general election turnout was over five times the size of the primary turnout.
Sure, you say, lots of people showed up to vote for Obama. Ok, but how do you explain 2006? Over 10 percent more people voted in the general election than did in the primary, even though it wasn't a presidential election and there was not one genuinely competitive race on the ballot. So even though Fenty was already "measuring the drapes", over 10,000 more people showed up to vote. In 2002, another non-presidential election year, over 27% more people showed up in November than in September.
The simple fact is that even though anyone can sign up as a Democrat and vote in the primary, only a minority of registered voters actually do so. During the last three mayoral election years (2006, 2002 and 1998), the percentage of registered voters that voted in the Democratic primary has held steady at 25, 27 and 26 respectively.
Even in the highly charged 1994 primary when Marion Barry returned from jail to defeat Sharon Pratt Kelly, only 39 percent of registered voters voted in the Democratic primary. During the non-mayoral years, that number falls off the charts, averaging just 12 percent.
Expect these numbers to fall even further once the District moves the primary to the middle of summer in order to comply with the new MOVE Act, which requires ballots to be sent to overseas voters by 45 days before the general election (a deadline this year the District almost certainly won't make).
So as it exists, the system magnifies the voice of a small dedicated bloc of voters. Does the rest of the electorate have to rubber stamp this decision? Of course not, but the very nature of the primary system ensures that there are no other viable Democrats left on the ballot by the time of the general election. Since the only way to be a viable candidate is to run for the Democratic primary, the rest of the electorate is left with little choice but to rubber stamp the primary results. It's a feedback loop.
A lot of these problems are hardly unique to the District. But their effects are exacerbated by the city's political demographics. If we genuinely care about democratic participation and want our elections to better reflect the will of the whole electorate, we should adopt an instant runoff voting system.
How this would work would be that all candidates that qualify would appear on the November ballot. Voters would then rank the candidates in order of their preference. Through a simple multi-step process, the candidate with the most aggregate support is determined.
Unfortunately there appears to be little appetite in the District government to increase voter enfranchisement in this manner. Councilmember David Catania's modest proposal to open up the primaries to unaffiliated voters was roundly rejected. Then yesterday, fearful that it would create a de facto open primary, the elections board upheld a bar against independent voters changing their affiliations to Democrat within 30 days of the primary.
Starting this year, non-registered residents can register right up to Election Day. Thus a person who has lived in the city for, say, 10 years and just never registered (or alternatively, a brand new resident that was a registered Republican in his or her last state) will be able to register and vote as a Democrat on the day of the primary. But if you are a registered independent voter who only just now got interested in the election and want to participate in the only vote that really matters, tough luck.
While I believe this particular decision is unjust and possibly a violation of Equal Protection, I don't mean to suggest that the District's primary system as a whole is unfair. It's not. But there is no legitimate reason to keep it as is when a much better option is available.
 | Topher Mathews has lived in the DC area since 1999. He created the Georgetown Metropolitan in 2008 to report on news and events for the neighborhood and to advocate for changes that will enhance its urban form and function. A native of Wilton, CT, he lives with his wife and new daughter in Georgetown.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
by Lou on Aug 26, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report
However, if you're unregistered, you can register and vote on the 14th. I can't quite wrap my head around how that makes any sense.
(I only learned of this rule after the BoE mailed me a sample ballot and registration information...2 days after the deadline to declare a party change. WTF.)
by andrew on Aug 26, 2010 3:36 pm • link • report
by Chris on Aug 26, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
by andrew on Aug 26, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report
by jcm on Aug 26, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
by Jim on Aug 26, 2010 3:46 pm • link • report
by arlucbo on Aug 26, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Aug 26, 2010 3:54 pm • link • report
Absurd.
Anthony Williams won as a write-in candidate, and Carol Schwartz (R) made a pretty damn good showing against the Mayor for Life in 1994.
If Fenty runs as an independent after losing the primary, which would hardly surprise me, he'd still get every single vote he got in the primary.
The thing about local elections is that only people who give a crap go and vote at all. There is no reason to believe that more than a tiny number will vote the democratic ticket in this election just because it's the democratic ticket.
by Jamie on Aug 26, 2010 4:09 pm • link • report
by TimK on Aug 26, 2010 4:23 pm • link • report
In the county south of Seattle, Pierce County, they tried to implement instant run off voting. However, it proved so unpopular among voters that they held a referendum to get rid of it. The voters found it too confusing and too expensive to implement. I was sad to see it go.
As for DC, I think instant run off would be a great idea, especially because I am unaffiliated and have given up on the idea of voting in the District because everything is decided in the primary.
by DEUhl on Aug 26, 2010 4:23 pm • link • report
by C on Aug 26, 2010 4:23 pm • link • report
Williams won as a write-in during the primary, not the general election. And yes, I'll admit that running against an embarrassed ex-con will make a marginal candidate approach viableness. Keep in mind that Schwartz still lost by 14% of the vote. Most people wouldn't consider that a particularly competitive race.
Fenty can't "run as an independent" because he would've had to submit enough signatures by Wednesday. If he loses the primary, his only chance would be to run a long shot write in campaign or, interestingly, if enough Republicans write his name in on their primary (not a long shot really, since nobody else's name is on the ballot).
by Topher on Aug 26, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report
by Marina Streznewski on Aug 26, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report
by Steve on Aug 26, 2010 4:35 pm • link • report
"Most people wouldn't consider that a particularly competitive race." In 1994, when the city was way more black than it is today, it's actually a profound accomplishment.
I bet if Fenty ran a write-in campaign he'd still have a shot in the general election. Anyway, we shall see. I just don't see him giving up if he loses the primary.
If he was smart, actually, he'd be telling the repubs to write him in, as you suggest.
by Jamie on Aug 26, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report
First of all, Topher is typically a nickname for Christopher.
And second, we have a rule here that everyone is entitled to voice an opinion regardless of where they live, what they do, who they are, etc. So Topher would be entirely entitled to voice an opinion if he weren't registered, but I'm pretty sure he is.
by David Alpert on Aug 26, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report
That seems like a major question to answer - are the election-time voters mostly republicans and independents, or Democrats?
The thing about the primaries that really irk me is that they disenfranchise independent voters - and yes, I realize that our system is basically set up to disenfranchise independent voters - but Republicans also have a primary so at least it's equitable. For independent voters, there is really no election.
by Allison on Aug 26, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report
Something else, "weird" that we could do.
I am currently involved in bidding on a bicycle facilities project in Tennessee, and while reading local newspapers, I learned that their local elections work on a different time frame not in lockstep with the state and national election schedule.
For example, the Hamilton County Commission had primary elections in May, and then the general election for the county commission occurred in the first week of August, simultaneously with the primary election for state and national offices.
So while there will still be a general election in November for state and national offices, the county elections will be over, and those who have been elected will take office beforehand.
And note that Pierce County, Washington does ranked voting in local elections.
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/11/ranked-choice-voting-graphic-pierce.html
by Richard Layman on Aug 26, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report
by Topher on Aug 26, 2010 4:47 pm • link • report
by Jim on Aug 26, 2010 4:59 pm • link • report
I fear that despite the logic here, this is too confusing for voters to understand. Many voters do not understand the existing system which is comparatively straightforward. You would not believe the number of people who showed up at the polls in November 2008 even though they were registered in other states. (This is not because DC has an odd voter registration requirement. Only 9 states, representing less than 10% of the US population, have election day registration.)
What is confounding is the fact that you can register to vote on election day, but you can't change party affiliation on election day. If you're going to have election-day registration, you should have open primaries (which, unlike blanket primaries, are constitutional). Idaho, Minnesota and Wisconsin have this combination of open primaries and election day registration, although 15 states have open primaries (including medium to large states such as Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia).
A non-partisan ballot may be the best way to go, but this would be opposed by the Republicans and Statehood/Green parties. Most DC Republicans would be running as Democrats in almost any other jurisdiction, and the Statehood/Green party owes its survival to the minority-party seats on the Council.
by Stanton Park on Aug 26, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report
by G-man on Aug 26, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report
Politically, it might make a few endorsements by democratic interest groups -- such as LGBT -- much less important in Mayoral races. And it might drive turnout up a bit for the general election.
But the reality is for the next 20 years DC will still be dominated by African American voters. Far too whites are transient or too rich (and don't want to pay DC taxes). HIspanics are often illegals. Africans are also immigrants and have low turnout.
So, again, to win you're going to have to feed that beast. In fact, you could probably win (like Barry) in a PR system just by feeding that beast. That would seem to be a lose in the GGW crusade to turn DC into Portland, OR.
It's called politics, it's not perfect. Ass-hat ideas like this should be shelved. See the Arlington at-large reform push. My sense is DC electoral politics works OK. DC government doesn't but that is another problem.
If you want real reform, give Anacosita/River East/whatever/ back to Maryland, or turn it into a separate city. That would solve your problems with DC politics, and fast.
Or is this just white-panic about Gray possibly winning?
by charlie on Aug 26, 2010 5:38 pm • link • report
First, and most importantly, IRV most DEFINITELY DOES have "spoilers".
If you presume that everyone in the world is hyper-partisan, or that third parties will never amount to anything, then I could see why you would think otherwise. So let me provide proof-by-example:
45%: A > B > C
10%: B > A > C
10%: B > C > A
35%: C > A > A
If this election is just A vs. B, then B wins, 55% to 45%.
But when you add candidate C, then A WINS. C is a spoiler. IRV has spoilers.
There are, however, voting methods which have no spoilers, even in 3-candidate races.
One is called approval voting: instead of only being able to vote for one candidate, you can vote for as many as you want. As before, the most votes wins.
Some people feel this doesn't give them enough control; for them, I would suggest you advocate for score voting, which is just like approval, but instead of just two "levels" to choose from (approve/disapprove), there are more (maybe 3, maybe 5, maybe 100... whatever your election commission thinks is appropriate). The highest total score wins.
If you think it through, you will find that, when adding additional candidates, the winner will ONLY change if the new candidate becomes the winner; and when removing candidates, the winner will ONLY change if you have removed the winner. Which is not the case for IRV, or for plurality (or for any Condorcet, Borda, Bucklin, or any other type of election method you might be familiar with.)
Please, do yourself a favor, and look into approval and score voting.
by Dale Sheldon-Hess on Aug 26, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report
by Nate on Aug 26, 2010 6:01 pm • link • report
I should note that while I favor moving to a system like this, I think any electoral reform should be done with a long lead time so as to not be a factor in any immediate elections.
My support of this has nothing to do with the current election.
by TimK on Aug 26, 2010 6:16 pm • link • report
by Topher on Aug 26, 2010 6:16 pm • link • report
That said, given the one-sided nature of DC, I would go with a non-partisan election, with an open primary in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
As for switching parties, Republicans and Statehood Greens are in a tough spot. On the one hand, if they want to truly have a voice, they should register as Democrats. However, if they ever hope to build up a viable party, they need to remain registered with their party.
by urbaner on Aug 26, 2010 6:44 pm • link • report
A lot of work has gone on in the interim to break one of those axioms in the least-damaging way possible.
But more importantly, the systems for which I am advocating, approval voting and score voting, do not use rank-ordered preferences, and so Arrow's axiom is inapplicable. That said... these methods still aren't perfect, and there probably ISN'T a perfect system. But Arrow's work doesn't show that. These methods do, for one reasonable extension of his axioms so that they can be applied, successfully pass them when there are THREE or fewer candidates (all other voting systems pass them when there are TWO or fewer candidates.) I hope it's obvious that that is quite a big deal.
@Topher: to address your concerns, I will try to describe IRV, approval, and score, completely and as succinctly as possible.
Approval: vote for any number of candidates; the candidate with the most votes wins.
Score: give any score from within the assigned range to any or all candidates; the highest total score wins.
IRV: rank the candidates from highest down; sort ballots by their 1st-ranked candidate; (A); if any candidate has 50% of the ballots, they win; if not, eliminate the candidate with the fewest ballots and redistribute them to the next, remaining, ranked candidate; repeat from (A).
I have honestly tried to to explain all methods in the simplest way which fully describes them; if you disagree with any of my descriptions, please, you are welcome to do better.
But I think it's obvious, just from these descriptions (I haven't even gone into algorithmic complexity!), that IRV is, in fact, NOT "simpler".
by Dale Sheldon-Hess on Aug 26, 2010 7:35 pm • link • report
Why not have a primary in May or June when you can have enough time to: a) have a primary runoff if needed; and b) have a decent enough time to get over the primary and have a full campaign on the issues.
IRV doesn't ensure a majority winner in a single election - ask the voters in San Francisco how many real majority winners they have had with IRV?
Ask the voters in Minneapolis if IRV saved them money over having a primary and a general election? One single IRV election cost them $365K MORE than holding a primary and a runoff in 2005 (even adjusted for inflation). Minneapolis had the lowest turnout in over 100 years with their first IRV election.
They had a 300% higher spoiled ballot rate with IRV in 2009 over the spoiled ballot rate of a traditional election.
If you want to cast a vote for a candidate in your party and then get behind whoever your party nominates, you need more time. Move the primary a few months earlier. IRV won't make that any better - in fact IRV dilutes party support of a candidate in a general election.
by Chris Telesca on Aug 26, 2010 7:45 pm • link • report
Here in Cary, NC back in 2007, 25% of voters showed up on election day and didn't know they would have to rank choices. That was a poll done by IRV advocates who also provided voter education for voters before they went into the polls. A year later, the Town of Cary hired a real polling company to do a survey of voters - and a little over 30% of voters didn't understand IRV, including over 20% that didn't understand it at all. This is in a town that has my states largest % of college grads and PhDs. In 2009, the Town decided not to hold another IRV election.
Do you really think it's as easy to cast three votes on a ballot than it is one? Do you think it's possible to count those votes on modern voting machines?
Trust me - IRV isn't as simple as people claim it is.
by Chris Telesca on Aug 26, 2010 7:51 pm • link • report
If you don't like it that Democrats predominate here you have the choice of either joining our party and trying to change the type of candidates that we nominate or joining another party and trying to convince 50.111% of the voters that your candidate is best.
If you are really an independent then you can wait until November and pick among the offerings from the various parties. It's all your choice.
P.S. The Council should try and close the loophole they have created by same day registration and party selection.
by Center-Left Dem. on Aug 26, 2010 8:04 pm • link • report
by Keith Ivey on Aug 26, 2010 8:10 pm • link • report
So Fenty would have to run a write-in campaign in November, unless enough Republicans write him in on their line that he would be the GOP candidate in the general election.
by Mike on Aug 26, 2010 8:13 pm • link • report
by another native on Aug 26, 2010 8:46 pm • link • report
I've lived in places with "non-partisan" elections. They end up being elections between 2 plausible candidates from the dominant party.
Can't change party on election day--the whole idea is to have an affiliation and have that represent something. My grandfather, a man described by his son, my Dad, as an ignorant superstitious man decided to become a Republican because he couldn't vote for a GOPer in a Democratic party. I'm not sure he was a good example of why people should be able to change.
Most independents lean toward one party or another but won't admit it. The others are the scary "undecided voters" who can't decide between obviously different people like Bush and Kerry or McCain and Obama. Yes, politically stupid people should be able to vote, but the system should minimize the damage.
There aren't and aren't enough GOPers in DC to make much difference in a mayoral election. that's why the council has affirmative action for some slots.
Give Anacostia back to Maryland? What happens when it starts to gentrify? There are plenty of awful politicians elected by white people, including white people with money. Just look at Doug "I love developers" Duncan or that twit Ehrlich, not to mention a lot of pols in Prince William County and many statewide figures in Virginia (e.g., George Allen, John Warner, Chuck Robb, not to mention the current governor and AG).
Want your vote to count? Vote in the Dem primary. I figured that out the first year I lived here. Not difficult to figure out and I'm a Dem. A GOPer? No chance in November anyway--support your favorite council candidate. An independent? Figure out who you really are and if you're someone who couldn't pick between Bush and Kerry, try to vote for things you actually know something about, instead everything else.
by Rich on Aug 26, 2010 8:47 pm • link • report
And yet you have this. Those who are willing to falsely claim to be Democrats can vote in the primary, then submit their party affiliation change right after the election.
by Brian White on Aug 26, 2010 9:21 pm • link • report
And yet it doesn't represent anything. Anyone is free to change their affiliation in time for the primary, then change it back.
"An independent? Figure out who you really are"
I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans. I'm neither.
by Brian White on Aug 26, 2010 9:24 pm • link • report
Where in your reading of this post do you extrapolate this as an effort for waves of gentrifiers trying drive native washingtonians out? How is a post arguing for making voting simpler (for all residents not just the new ones)somehow an argument for disenfrachising voters as you say when you assume those who like this plan are intent on keeping people from not coming from the polls. Please tell me you're trolling because your comment so far is the only one that strikes me as being discriminatory by assuming that all the readers/commenters of this blog share the same values.
Full disclosure, I don't live in DC but would maybe like too and would regardless like to see the city given a chance to be fairly managed as I wish for every locality.
by Canaan on Aug 26, 2010 11:13 pm • link • report
The argument presumes that the dominant political party should have no say in its own candidate since as a practical matter everybody has to live with its decisions. I am an independent, I'd rather there be no parties, but I don't suppose the parties would agree with me.
The more you analyze this the more it appears that the author gives a bunch of rationalizations to put their thumb on the political scale to their favor. In truth DC has enough diversity in candidates to choose from to get a good representatives (they are just usually democrat, all respect to Carol Schwartz).
Republicans should decide for themselves who their candidate is, independents should accept that they probably wont have a say, and democrats should pick their candidate.
by CitizenZ on Aug 27, 2010 12:02 am • link • report
by another native on Aug 27, 2010 12:59 am • link • report
by Nate on Aug 27, 2010 1:44 am • link • report
Another alternative would be the type of the municipal voting-election system that Chicago has in place. (Please, readers, hold your fire.)
For years Chicago has elected its 50 aldermen on a non-partisan basis. There are two rounds. On the first round all candidates are on the ballot. If a candidate gets a majority, that's it; game over. No majority? The top two finishers proceed to the runoff.
The mayoral and citywide offices did not adopt this system until about 10 or so years ago. For those offices, Chicago went through the same ridiculous process that DC does -- until changing citywide offices to the same system as the City Council.
by mattyillini on Aug 27, 2010 7:47 am • link • report
by Lance on Aug 27, 2010 8:15 am • link • report
Well aren't you folks quite the intellects,you're going to come and save the savages from themselves, really, you clowns are a real joke, don't you know that real natives have been watching people like you come and go for wave upon wave of gentrification effort.
...then Canaan wrote:
Full disclosure, I don't live in DC but would maybe like too and would regardless like to see the city given a chance to be fairly managed as I wish for every locality.
Look out "another native"!! Canaan's coming to displace you!!
:)
by oboe on Aug 27, 2010 10:40 am • link • report
I look forward to hearing your critique of Gray's performance in 2012. My guess is that, under a Gray Administration, black folks will still be allowed to sell private homes to non-blacks. Since this is essentially "gentrification", I hope you won't be disappointed.
by oboe on Aug 27, 2010 10:43 am • link • report
This is just silly. Nobody is a "crusader" for gentrifying. Gentrification is an effect, not a cause.
by Jamie on Aug 27, 2010 10:48 am • link • report
Voters certainly wouldn't have a clue about GOP, Statehood Green, Socialist Workers, etc., with IRV - they'd only vote for one candidate they liked (probably a Dem) then either not vote for anyone else, or cast meaningless "donkey" votes.
by Chris Telesca on Aug 27, 2010 7:06 pm • link • report
We have Same Day Voter Registration for Early Voting in NC. We allow new voters to register, but existing voters can only update address info - not change parties. If you want to change parties you can't do that any earlier than 15 days.
UNA voters can vote one party or the other in the primary, but they have to stick with that party for any primary runoffs.
Frankly I favor closed primaries. Primaries are about party activists picking who they want to represent their party in the general election. Letting people into the Democratic Primary who are not Dems can screw things up. Ever wonder how Alvin "Mystery Man" Greene beat a well-known Dem in the SC Senate primary? Probably because they have open primaries in SC.
Open primaries are a so-called electoral reform which makes it easy to claim that IRV will work. Problem is, parties perform a very valuable function and shouldn't be done away with.
by Chris Telesca on Aug 27, 2010 7:14 pm • link • report
http://scorevoting.net/CFERlet.html
by Clay Shentrup on Aug 27, 2010 8:44 pm • link • report
Add a Comment