Brian McCabe writing for the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight political blog on September 14, 2010 makes some excellent points about why voter participation in primaries is down.
Why is participation in partisan primaries on the decline? Are voters increasingly apathetic, or channeling their anger elsewhere? The most likely answer seems to be that fewer voters are eligible to participate in primary elections. Evidence on changing partisan identification, coupled with state-by-state eligibility requirements for participation in primary elections, suggests that declining turnout in partisan primaries reflects voters’ retreat from partisan identifications.
…
With closed primaries dominating the political landscape, long-term trends in self-identified partisan affiliation suggest that fewer people are eligible to vote in partisan primaries.
While McCabe suggests that overall, lower participation is due to fewer eligible primary voters, he does cite an example where even in a closed primary, participation rates have increased due to an effort to make voting easier.
Participation rates fluctuate substantially within states, reflecting, in large part, the electoral competitiveness of individual races. In the state-level data from the 2010 primary season, one state stands out for its remarkable increase in voter turnout: Colorado. Participation in the 2010 primary elections in Colorado increased by 114 percent over 2006. Surely, competitive races on both sides of the aisle, as well as for both statewide offices, drove turnout. But, for the first time, Coloradans had the option of voting by mail, rather than voting in person. In fact, in almost three-quarters of Colorado counties, all-mail primaries required voters to vote by mail. Like most states, Colorado has a closed primary that restricts participation to registered partisans. Yet, the state’s effort to make voting easier seems to have generated real returns for participation rates. More than twice as many voters voted in Colorado’s 2010 primary than voted in the 2006 primary election.
Absent a reversal in trends in partisan identification, efforts to make voting easier could be the antidote to primary seasons continually marred by declining levels of participation.
With participation on the decline nationally, why would Tennessee want to further reduce the number of people participating in a primary by changing our current open primary system to a closed one? Have I answered my own question? Is lowering voter participation in a primary precisely what the closed primary proponents want?
Let’s all give three cheers to keeping people away from the polls!
HOORAY!
HOORAY!
HOORAY!
Doesn’t make sense to me, though. “So, what?” if there is lower interest in primary participation? Those who care will vote, and those who don’t, won’t. The ones who care are the more likely to have cared enough to do some research on the candidates, rather than just voting for the one who was able to buy more air time. Remember, this is a primary election we’re talking about – simply deciding who the candidates will be in the actual election. It is supposed to be “exclusive”: only Republicans nominating Republican candidates, and only Democrats nominating Democrats.
Then let the parties pay for their primaries if they want to be exclusive. Why should our tax dollars fund a primary for a private political party? Since all Tennesseans are footing the bill, then all Tennesseans should be free to vote in the primary of their choosing.
Pingback: TN GOP SEC to be Presented with Plan to Close Primaries | Blue Collar Muse