----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Winger" <ban@igc.org>
To: <pfeist@sfchronicle.com>

Dear Mr. Feist, I am e-mailing you about your article "Open primary idea
gets new life".

I have in my lap a book published this year called "Voting at the

Political

Fault Line", subtitled, "California's Experiment with the Blanket

Primary",

edited by Political Science Professors Bruce E. Cain and Elisabeth R.
Gerber.  It is published in association with the U.C. Berkeley Institute

of

Governmental Studies.  It contains studies by 23 distinguished political
scientists who are experts in election law and political parties.

The book defines "open primary" as a primary in which "participation is

open

to all registered voters, but each party has a separate ballot".  This is
the standard definition, and this is the definition San Francisco

Chronicle

writers ought to use.  States with an open primary are Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  Your article
implicitly accepts this definition because it says, "About 20 other states
have such open primaries".

The California Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are not
proposing an "open primary".  The system they are proposing would not
provide for a separate primary ballot for each party.  It's just wrong
English usage to call the Chamber/Roundtable proposal an "open primary".

If

the Chamber/Roundtable wanted an open primary, they would propose that the
voter registration form no longer ask a voter his or her party

affiliation.

The question wouldn't be asked.  Voters would just be listed as voters,
without any party mentioned.  Then, on primary day, each voter would ask

for

whichever party's primary ballot he or she desires to vote on.

The Chamber/Roundtable  are proposing a "nonpartisan primary".  No state
currently has a nonpartisan primary except Louisiana.  Therefore, in your
future articles, you should use the correct terminology, a "non-partisan
primary".

The Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable system is properly called a
"nonpartisan primary" because, as your article correctly points out,

parties

won't actually be nominating candidates.  California would join Louisiana

as

the only states having a nonpartisan primary.

In the 22 open primary states, minor party and independent candidates
routinely appear on the general election ballot.  Under the
Chamber/Roundtable plan, in the vast majority of elections, there would no
longer be any minor party or independent candidates on the general

election

ballot.  Voters would lose the range of choices they now have at general
elections.  If the Chamber/Roundtable told you that "open primary" is the
correct terminology for their proposal, they tricked you.  To reiterate,
"open primary" already has a clear definition in U.S. political

terminology,

and the Chamber/Roundtable proposal is not an open primary and should not

be

called an "open primary".