Friday, January 22, 2010

Open Primary – Part 2

In my first call for an open primary, I made the philosophical argument for an Open Primary in the Congressional 8th District Republican Primary.

That is a good reason for an Open Primary.

But here is a more practical reason.

There is a grassroots ground swell of limited government citizens who are revolting against more government spending, more government taxation, and more government involvement in our every day lives.

As a Party, we need to embrace these citizens. And I don’t mean just trying to turn them into volunteers for our organization. I mean truly embrace them and their ideals.

How?

Engage them in campaigns and politics by providing an Open Primary for them to participate in.

And they want to participate. But they will react very badly to what they consider back-room coronations of candidates.

We can embrace them, have an open primary, then bring them along into November to work for the eventual nominee.

Or we can put them off, pick a candidate, and guarantee that we will have an independent candidate in the fall election who will siphon votes from our nominee and help re-elect Pat Murphy. And we will have wasted an opportunity to bring new activists into the Party.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well if the activists want to have an open primary, and I understand the reason for that...then where is the support for the candidates in order for them to do so? How many activists are going to help a specific candidate obtain the petition signatures necessary to be on the ballot? How many will donate? Who will step up to the plate to help a specific candidate NOW?

BucksLiberty said...

No one can know the answer to your questions. Candidates will organize, raise money, formulate their campaign issues.

Have faith in the free market of competition, instead of worrying about how we will centrally plan these elections!

Andrew said...

The party should support each candidate equally or whats the point of having a primary? Encourage the people to be part of the process instead of lambasting them and using that as rationale for 'control'