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

[Eric McGhee]

Richard, I don’t mean to split hairs, but I think it’s important to distinguish between raiding and simple crossover voting.  I agree that the absence of a Democratic contest makes it more likely that Democrats will crossover to vote for Republicans, but that doesn’t tell us that they will do it as an act of sabotage.  I think the standard for proving that is much higher, and requires knowing something about voter opinions of the candidates.  Moreover, the best evidence we have is that raiding is very rare (including from the CA gubernatorial primary in 1998, where there was no real Republican contest but a hotly-contested Democratic one).


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: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:06 PM
To: 'WewerLacy at aol.com'; David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu; Eric McGhee
Subject: raiding in California blanket primaries tells us little about 2012 raiding potential

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<mailto:mcghee at ppic.org>> wrote:

From: Eric McGhee <mcghee at ppic.org<mailto:mcghee at ppic.org>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Herman Cain and Black Democrats
To: "'WewerLacy at aol.com'" <WewerLacy at aol.com<mailto:WewerLacy at aol.com>>, "David at HoltzmanLaw.com<mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com>" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com<mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com>>, "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<http://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</mc/compose?to=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/e3f922bd/attachment.html>