This has always driven me crazy. As a journalist, I am nonpartisan. But as a word person, it offends me that the only choice I have on a California registration card is to classify myself as 'decline to state.' As if I'm hiding something.For years, being nonpartisan meant I could not participate in primary elections. Voters have opened up the process somewhat with initiatives. And a ballot measure next June would open it even more. Instead of parties picking nominees, voters would pick the top two candidates for a runoff, and the top two vote-getters would proceed to a general election. In some cases, this would mean a general election pitting two members of the same party against each other. The idea was apparently formulated by former San Diego lawmaker Steve Peace.
Some Republicans are opposing this. Some are not.
For those who oppose it, their thinking is simple and understandable: keep the party pure. From their point of view, I can see this.
But, honestly, what's always bothered me is this -- if a primary election is a private affair, why am I paying for it?
This seems like a simple, and obvious, question. But because 'decline to state' voters have no power in the electoral process -- not one representative that I know of -- no one looks at it this way. Certainly, taxpayers should fund general elections. But if a primary election is about a closed group of people picking their nominee for the general election, why should everyone else pay?
So if the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Communists or the Natural Law Party or any other party want to keep their primary elections as a private affair, it seems like there should be some discussion of it. And some discussion of them paying for it. As I understand it, the state could use the money.
I guess we'll see what happens next June first.
Posts
