Open primaries and ranked choice: You decide
Are you frustrated with polarization? When the primaries roll around — which, let’s be honest, sometimes equate to the final decision in Idaho — do you sometimes wish you could vote for (or against) particular candidates in a different party?
You might get the chance.
The Open Primaries Initiative will appear on the general election ballot, Idaho’s Secretary of State announced Wednesday. A simple-majority “yes” vote Nov. 5 would lead to big changes in Idaho elections law — essentially giving voters more choice: one for primaries, and the other changing the way we vote in general elections.
Open primaries: First, instead of the Democrats' open primary and the closed primary for registered Republicans, all Idaho voters, regardless of political persuasion, would be eligible to participate in a single, open primary featuring all candidates. Of those, the four with the most votes, no matter their party affiliation, would advance to the general election.
Idaho switched to a closed Republican primary in 2011. That has made it hard on unaffiliated and independent voters, whose choices might span more than one party. Current state law does allow political parties to choose to open their primaries; in 2022 the Democratic Party opened theirs to non-Democrat voters.
Does America care? In a sad statement of how much we value the right to vote, nearly 80% of eligible voters don’t even participate in primaries. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s 2022 Primary Turnout report also noted participation in primaries nationwide was up slightly from the previous election cycle, at 21.3% of all eligible voters. States that switched to open primaries saw an increase in voter participation, with an average turnout of 24.5%, compared with 21.5% for states with semi-open primaries and 20.7% for states with closed primaries.
Ranked choices: Back to the initiative, if it passes, Idaho will join the growing number of cities, counties and (two) states that use ranked choice voting for general elections. That would allow voters to pick a favorite candidate, then be able to rank the rest in order of preference. If one candidate gets 50% plus one after all first-choice votes are counted, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the person with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and those voters' second choice get bumped up to the top spot for the next round of counting. This reallocation goes on until one candidate reaches more than 50%.
Alaska and Maine already use ranked choice, along with at least 60 local jurisdictions. Nevada and Oregon voters will consider similar initiatives in November.
Ranked choice voting is neither new nor noncontroversial. Some states have used it just for presidential primaries. Other jurisdictions tried it in the 1920s and '30s but discontinued because low-tech counting processes were too cumbersome. Now that today’s technology makes it easier, RCV is gaining ground again.
Pros. Proponents say RCV ensures the winner represents a true majority vote. The usual system of "most votes wins" can make someone with only a plurality, not necessarily the person with majority support, the winner. Consider the electoral college system, where the popular and electoral choices don’t necessarily match. More than once, the nation has had a president whose opponent actually got more votes.
Proponents and some elections experts also say it encourages more moderate candidates, that extreme-view candidates have a harder time getting through primaries because a broader appeal nets more second-choice votes. RCV may also cut costs by eliminating the need for run-offs.
Perhaps RCV’s biggest argument is that it gives voters more power. With the viability of candidates less pressing, fewer voters have to hold their noses to vote for someone they like less, simply because the favorite seems less likely to win (or risk vote-splitting). In the ranking system, such dilemmas are solvable by listing more than one choice.
Cons. Opponents say RCV is too complicated, and complications can lead to confusion or voter mistakes. It’s not the straightforward one candidate-one oval approach we’re used to seeing on ballots. Some worry that can lead to improperly filled ballots not being counted, at least during the learning curve phase (search “ranked choice sample ballot” at maine.gov to judge for yourself).
Another con is that it could encourage deal-making between candidates, who could agree to urge voters to choose one another as No. 2. In a mayoral election in New York City’s ranked-choice system, such an alliance was openly campaigned, with mixed reactions.
Ranked choice voting would also mean voters would need to do more of what we all should be doing anyway — be more informed about all the candidates.
Constitutionality. In 2018, Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) challenged the constitutionality of Maine’s ranked-choice system in federal court and lost (Baber v. Dunlap). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a similar challenge in 2011 (Dudum v. Arntz). According to the Congressional Research Service, state supreme courts in Alaska, Minnesota, and Massachusetts have upheld RCV systems when challenged.
Whatever you think, please vote Nov. 5. There’s a lot more at stake than the office of president.
• • •
Sholeh Patrick, J.D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Email sholeh@cdapress.com.