I like 'em, but I understand they may not be right for Idaho

Jim, you make some really good points here, especially about the role of money in campaigns. There will be no real change in politics until we can move to a publicly financed system.

I grew up in Pennsylvania, and our primaries were closed. I've always felt - but maybe because I grew up in that environment - that registering by party makes voters think about which party really represents their interests. I feel that if Idaho closed its primaries, more people might actually decide to identify as Democrats if they had to choose.

Yes, it's true that the GOP has a strong advantage in Idaho electoral politics, but you need only go back about 15 years to see a time when that wasn't so true. I believe the tide is turning again, not just in the Boise area but in places like Idaho Falls, McCall, Coeur d'Alene, and Twin Falls.

I am happy to see the Idaho Democratic Party stand up for the rights of independents, and to raise the voter privacy issue in opposing closed primaries. Personally, however, I will continue to encourage people to proudly declare that they are, in fact, Democrats because the Democratic Party has been more fiscally responsible and seeks to be sure everyone - not just the favored, monied few - share more fully in the rights, responsibilities, and rewards our country can offer.

Re: What do you think of closed primaries?

I don't know about closed primaries. I guess I see the good and the bad and don't know if there is enough information right now on either side to say either way. We might have to wait and see how it benefits the Democratic Party and citizens in Idaho who are disenfranchised.

Re: What do you think of closed primaries?

Thanks Julie and Jessica. I think you both express the open-mindedness that is helpful to get at a much deeper issue of fostering greater public ownership over our electoral process so that people see elections as a positive way to shape the future of their communities. When the expensive consultants who are hired to sell cars and pharmaceuticals are also hired to sell political candidates, people get the impression that elections are not the open public space that they once were.

Re: What do you think of closed primaries?

Some good points Jim.

I grew up in SE Idaho. Oftentimes, the election was held in the primary. If you did not vote in the Republican primary, you did not have a vote for who your elected official would be.

It was a sad commentary on the 2 party system in Idaho. However, I do believe that is changing. 2006 there were primaries in some legislative and county races along with a high profile primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction. It already appears there will be a primary in Congressional District 1 for 2008.

I agree with Julie, it is very important for Democrats to be proud of who they are.

My main disagreement with the Republican plan is the disenfranchising of independent voters. No one should be forced to declare a party affiliation to vote on their elected officials.

In the end, I am sure that party registration and closed primaries will hurt voter turnout, especially in its first election cycle.

Re: What do you think of closed primaries?

Closed primaries present a problem for voters who need to maintain a non partisan image for their job. As a reporter would you want to make your political party allegience a matter of public record? There are any number of careers in which a person would not want to publicly declare their partisanship. Closed primaries disenfranchise voters for many different reasons.

Other factors that also discourage competition

I sent some comments to Kevin Richert at the Idaho Statesman on this issue since he has objected to closed primaries. He then seems to blame the lack of competition soley on the failure of parties to recruit candidates. He has a blog on the Statesman website and one can send comments but the comments are not posted.

These are mine, which pointed out that there are several reasons why the public is deprived of competition in elections.

First, when many candidates file to run, the media decides they are not "viable" enough to warrant coverage. This means most voters don't know there is competition unless and until they go to the voting booth. It is a deeply frustrating experience for a someone to take the risk to run only to find out that if they don't put their family's savings into the campaign or raise a huge amount from other private sources, they will be largely ignored by the media. The media's concept of "viability" has everything to do with how much money the candidate is willing to raise and spend, not whether their ideas are worthy or what their track record is working to improve their community. Notice who the "viable" presidential candidates are that get regular coverage. People will not be voting for nearly a year, yet there are "winners" and "losers" in the race for private money.

Second, coverage of elections focuses far too much on the "horse-race" aspect. When there are in-depth stories about health care, education, growth, etc... that tv, radio and newspapers take pride in reporting, they exclude the position of the candidates. Candidate positions are saved up and summarized later in one big spread or not at all. Disconnecting issue stories from the candidate stories means that many people who ought to think of themselves as good candidates on those issues don't because they don't see the rest of the world (through the media) making the connection.

Third, if the system of competitive races really is the goal to enhance the public good, why do the Statesman and other big media companies insist that they be totally financed by private interests. The more money it takes to run, the more candidates must rely on wealthy interests to finance their campaigns. It is disappointing to see the same old wringing of hands about lack of competition without any acknowledgement of the role private financing has on public elections. The Post Register has taken a close look at states where public financing exists and has called on Idaho to adopt a similar system. More candidates are running in both primary and general elections in those states. The open vs. closed primary debate is less relevant when there is real competition.