Here
is a special endorsement; a two-for-one deal involving both Amendments 107 AND
108.
Both
amendments deal with how the political parties deal with choosing their
nominees for offices; 107 deals with the presidential primary while 108 would
open the primaries for all non-presidential elections.
The
impetus for this ballot measure stems from Colorado’s presidential nominating
contest that was held in March. The political parties have control over how
they choose to allocate delegates to the county, state, and eventually national
conventions.
The
Democrats had a caucus (which I participated in) and at caucus we chose who we
supported for president. I supported Clinton, but Sanders won the caucus. There
were some reports of locations being unable to hold the number of people
attending as well as long lines. I can testify to that going into my caucus
location at a nearby high school there was a long line, but we were done as
quick as possible given the number of people that attended.
Meanwhile,
the Republicans did not hold a presidential preference poll thus did not
allocate their delegates at caucus. They chose to allocate their delegates at their
congressional district conventions and eventually at the state convention which
were held much later in the nominating process as it was looking more likely
that Donald Trump was going to be their nominee. Colorado Republicans through
their process chose delegates aligned with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and it was
part of the Never Trump movement; an effort that was a Hail Mary to either
block Trump from receiving a majority of the delegates or triggering certain
provisions in the Republican Party’s rules to force a contested convention.
The
presidential nominating contests this election cycle certainly exposed several
flaws in how the major parties choose their nominee through the allocation of
delegates. For the Democrats it was the use of delegates – allocated
proportionally by voters in either a primary election or caucus – and superdelegates
who were free to support a candidate at any time prior to the national
convention. This caused a bit of consternation among Sanders supporters due to
that before the start of the Iowa Caucus, Clinton
had as much as 360 superdelegates in her pocket.
Some
Republicans wished they had the Democrats’ system of delegate allocation because
it likely would have blocked Trump from being their nominee. Besides having
superdelegates that might have seen the potential danger of Trump as their nominee
and provide a gatekeeper of sorts from that happening, Republicans also had a
system of where some states awarded on proportional, some had certain
thresholds candidates had to meet to claim certain percentages of delegates,
and like the instance of Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and others were winner-take-all
regardless of the winning candidate’s margin of victory or whether the winner
received a majority of votes.
And
with both major parties it was HOW the election was conducted. Some states such
as Iowa, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Hawaii conducted their process by
caucus while others such as Texas, New York, California, Florida, and Virginia
used a primary. Kentucky Democrats held a primary while Kentucky Republicans
went with a caucus in order to accommodate Senator Rand Paul’s failed effort
pursuit for the nomination.
Then
there are the issues concerning voter registration and who can participate. In Colorado,
you had to have been registered with the party for 60 days prior to
participating in caucus as well as be a resident and registered to vote for 30
days propr. Meanwhile in Texas, you have to register to vote 30 days prior to
an election and to participate in a primary election you ask for the ballot at
the poling location.
They
also stamp your voter registration card too. I kinda missed that. I liked being
a technically card carrying Texas Democrat.
Anyways…
Most
of these are due to state laws that are in place and this became a subject of controversy
when New
York unaffiliated voters who wanted to vote for Sanders suddenly could not
because the
deadline to declare a party affiliation had passed long before the Sanders
campaign gained any serious momentum.
According
to the most recent voter registration statistics provided by the Colorado
Secretary of State, a
little more than 1 million Colorado voters are unaffiliated with any
political party; the largest pool in the state. The next two largest pools are
Democrats at 998 thousand and Republicans short of 993 thousand.
Colorado
is the very definition of swing state for this very reason.
The
reason it did not arrive to Governor Hickenlooper’s desk for his signature was because
1) it happened late in the session as sine die was
approaching, 2) the bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee along
party lines 4-3, and 3) there were rumors that state Republican Party Chairman
Steve House played a role in pressuring members of that committee to kill the
bill.
I
agree that there needs to be serious reform of how the parties chooses its
candidates for various offices, and I plan to offer some suggestions in a
series of posts sometime after the election. For now, let’s look at the
suggestions provided by Amendments 107 and 108.
107
offers the move from a caucus to a primary as well as allowing unaffiliated
voters to participate.
As
shown in other states, primary elections resulted in better turnout that the
caucuses in part due to being conducted as an election with an early vote
period followed by an election day. A strong argument against the caucus is
that they severely disenfranchise certain voters due to timing of the caucus
that conflicted with work and school schedules, child care needs, and other unforeseen
appointments or events.
The critique
of this proposed amendment is that it would move Colorado’s presidential
primary delegate allocation to a winner-take-all.
Winner-take-all
delegate allocation might have hastened the end of the primary but it certainly
would have lessened one candidate’s delegates influence on the platform and
other committee assignments at convention.
108,
like a provision in 107, would open the non-presidential primaries for all
unaffiliated voters.
The
proposal under 108 would send unaffiliated voters ballots for both party
primaries. This could have a consequence of an unaffiliated voter returning
both party primary ballots filled out thus invalidating one or both of their
choices.
Then
there is the risk of inflating a party’s primary vote totals thus giving it a
false sense of dominance heading into a general election. You may have a surge
of unaffiliated voters voting in a primary election due to it being more
competitive than the opposing party’s primary, or the primary election is the
only election for that seat because the opposite party failed to field a
candidate and those voters want a say in the election instead of those affiliated
voters.
Again
to restate my earlier point, I agree that the nominating process in this
country needs some serious reform. The state legislature should try again to
solve this problem in the upcoming session. 2017 appears to be the best
opportunity given that the memories of issues surrounding the primaries are
still relatively fresh in everyone’s mind. Passing a bill and implementing it
in time for 2018 would give the state a trial period to determine what
corrective actions are needed prior to the presidential nominating contests in
2020.
Definitely
Colorado should move to a primary election for the presidential nominating but
a winner-take-all delegate system would present a new set of problems.
The
winner gets all of the delegates regardless if the vote is close or is a
blowout. Other candidates might make the strategic move of conceding Colorado
if it is not viable to campaign in the state thus reducing our influence in the
nomination process.
Same
issue if there are multiple candidates. If Candidate A gets 36% of the vote,
Candidate B receives 34%, and Candidate C gets the remaining 30%, and there are
100 delegates to be allocated, what are the final delegate tallies in a
winner-take-all scenario?
The
answer is Candidate A receives 100 delegates while B and C get nothing despite
their best efforts.
As
for allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in any primary election, I am a
registered Democrat in Colorado, and I take pride in that. My stance is that if
you want a say in how the parties nominate their candidates for office: check
the box for a party on your voter registration.
While
moving to a primary is the right step for Colorado, awarding the delegates via
winner-take-all as well as broadly allowing unaffiliated voters to participate
is why I recommend NO votes on
Amendments 107 & 108.
No comments:
Post a Comment