Subject: a plea for consistency on vocabulary re: primaries
From: "ban@richardwinger.com" <richardwinger@yahoo.com>
Date: 5/5/2006, 9:43 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Reply-to:
ban@richardwinger.com

Recently, a political science professor authored an
op-ed piece that appeared in at least two California
daily newspapers, advocating that California switch to
the type of primary in which only two candidates
appear on the November ballot.

The author referred to that system as "the open
primary".  I advocate that, no matter what side anyone
is on, that everyone agree to the common vocabulary
used by US Supreme Court decisions, and set out in the
book "Voting at the Political Fault Line".

"Voting at the Political Fault Line" was published by
the Univ. of Cal. Press in 2002.  Many political
scientists contributed chapters to that book.  Some of
the chapters define the 4 basic types of primary.

Definitions set out in the book:  (1) Open primary,
one in which participation is open to all registered
voters, but each party has a separate ballot, and
voters are restricted to participating in a single
party's nominations in a given election (page 211); 
(2) Closed primary, one in which participation in the
primary is limited to registered members of that party
(page 193); (3) Blanket primary, one in which
participation is extended to all registered voters, 
(page 193); (4) Non-partisan primary, which is not
defined, but described as the system used in Louisiana
(page 240).

While these definitions could perhaps be better, they
are orthdox.  They are so orthodox, that a Superior
Court in California ruled on August 9 in Vandermost v
Shelley (Sacramento, C04-7231) that proponents of the
Louisiana-type of primary could not refer to it as an
"open primary" in the Calif. Voters Handbook.

I advocate that the Louisiana-type primary be called
the "top two" primary.  That is the term used by the
mainstream press in Washington state for that type of
primary.  It seems neutral and descriptive.

Since the "top-two" primary is almost surely going to
be on the November 2006 Oregon ballot, and since the
9th circuit is pondering the constitutionality of that
type of primary (in a Washington state case), and
since proponents of that type of primary are active in
California, this is not a moot issue.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com