[EL] raiding in California blanket primaries tells us little about 2012 raiding potential

[Richard Winger]

California used blanket primaries in 1998 and 2000, even for the presidential primary.  But the 2000 presidential primaries were competitive for both major parties, at least at first.  California's 2000 presidential primary was March 7, and at that time Al Gore still faced a competitive race with Bill Bradley.  The only presidential primaries in 2000 earlier than March 7 were:  New Hampshire, where Gore beat Bradley 49.7% to 45.6%; Delaware, where Gore beat Bradley 57.2% to 40.2%; and Washington, where Gore beat Bradley more decisively.

2012 is a different kind of election year than California 2000, because in 2012 there is no contest on the Democratic side at all.  And there is good evidence that in 1972, in the Michigan presidential primary, Republicans gleefully raided the Democratic presidential primary (because the Republican primary was so obviously not a contest) and caused George Wallace to win.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Wed, 11/2/11, Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org> wrote:

From: Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] Herman Cain and Black Democrats
To: "'WewerLacy at aol.com'" <WewerLacy at aol.com>, "David at HoltzmanLaw.com" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>, "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2011, 11:49 AM



 
 




There was a fair amount of research on California’s experience with the blanket primary a decade ago.  The evidence strongly suggests that the kind of strategic
 “raiding” described below (i.e., voting for the worst candidate in order to sabotage the nomination) is extremely rare.  It requires complicated coordination by voters (why raid if nobody else is doing it?) and is a much bigger gamble for the average voter
 than simply choosing the candidate one likes the best.   
   
Of course, that’s just an empirical issue--whether an open primary of any kind is a good idea is a separate question. 
   
Cheers, 
Eric 

   
Eric McGhee  |  Policy Fellow  |  PPIC  |  415-291-4439 
   
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the Public Policy Institute of California. 

   


From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
On Behalf Of WewerLacy at aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:35 AM

To: David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

Subject: Re: [EL] Herman Cain and Black Democrats 


   

I actually have done legal work for a nonprofit Herman Cain chaired during the mid 2000's and I was an early contributor to his Presidential exploratory committee
 last January so far be it from me to address Professor Lowenstein's question from a political as opposed to a strictly election law perspective.... 


  


But I think it is a good question.  Where there is an open primary, is a result that voters of another party cross lines to affect the outcomes of the opposition
 party either out of affinity with a candidate of the other party, or to enhance the outcome in the general for their favored candidate by supporting whom they might consider to be the weaker opposition candidate? 


  


It seems to me that perhaps in some settings, such as the south, where Herman is from and has been known as a Baptist minister, African Americans, particularly
 Baptists, who are also Democrats, might find reason to vote for Herman Cain out of affinity. 


  


It seems to me that urban African Americans in large states like Illinois and New York, to the extent they vote, and to the extent the primaries are open, and who
 already support Obama out of shared ideology and more common affinity, might also vote for Cain in the open primary for several reasons; 1) the assure that the next president is an African-American regardless of which party wins the general election; 2) and
 perhaps of a perception, still to be proven, that Cain might be the weaker of the Republican candidates in the general election. 


  


James V. Lacy 


Wewer & Lacy, LLP 


visit our website at
www.wewerlacy.com 


  


This of course goes to the core of what is wrong with an open primary system, as it creates an opportunity for manipulation of outcomes by voters who do not really
 support the platform of the party whose primary election they are raiding.  In California, the promoters of the open primary system stated they thought the system would moderate outcomes in both parties.  The price to be paid for moderation is less emphasis
 on a platform of idea and significant intervention by voters who do not share those views.  Creating opportunities for clever, well-funded consultants to further manipulate outcomes through advertising. 


  


  





-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111102/002507e9/attachment.html>