Primary elections, open and closed, US and UK inc. Labour
- This topic has 25 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Heres a new topic arising out of the topic on Labours Jeremy Corbyn. First a definition from WikipediaQuote:Closed primary. People may vote in a party's primary only if they are registered members of that party prior to election day. Independents cannot participate. Note that because some political parties name themselves independent, the terms "non-partisan" or "unaffiliated" often replace "independent" when referring to those who are not affiliated with a political party. Thirteen states — Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota — have closed primaries.
- Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day. Thirteen states — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming — have semi-closed primaries that allow voters to register or change party preference on election day.[4][5]
- Open primary. A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his own party affiliation. When voters do not register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party's primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as raiding may occur. Raiding consists of voters of one partycrossing over and voting in the primary of another party, effectively allowing a party to help choose its opposition's candidate. The theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election. An example of this can be seen in the 1998 Vermont senatorial primary with the nomination of Fred Tuttle as the Republican candidate in the general election.
Then my comment on entryismQuote:Rules aside, I don't think it works like that from a sociological perspective anyway. Generally the motivations of those in a mass organisation wanting a labour-friendly sort of capitalism will never be outweighed, outvoted or tricked out of their object. Entryism doesn't work, whether Toby 'Tory' Young's malevolent conservatives supporting Corbyn, Militant Tendency or League of Empire Loyalists. Despite what some members here fear of open primaries as opening a dangerous backdoor, I don't think entryism is even successful at all with open primaries. Successful entryists, and I would like to hear of examples, tend to just encourage the members joined up for the original purpose to split away and regroup. Another reason it is better to vote for what you want and not get it.Quote:Fair enough if you're not entryist or suggesting other entryists should join Labour, but then Labour's aims and values members are subscribing to are strike-breaking and war-mongering. The Labour party is not even an exemplary example of open primaries for candidates representing democracy at work. Don't be dazzled by this watered-down import of American politics. The Democrats and even the Republicans hold open primaries for candidates and you don't even have to register as a supporter of those parties (as far as I understand). Young Master Smeet here insists this is the state co-opting workers who don't support those parties but I think that's more about YMS's fear of open primaries and my enthusiasm for using them in the SPGB.A quote from part of a comment by ALBQuote:But what is happening has blown out of the water JohnD's proposal for open primaries, even by us. What has happened was predictable and will happen again. It's built-in to the scheme. And we are even stricter that people should share our aims and values. Like the Labour Party we would expel (and have expelled) people who publicly vote for another party. Would we let them vote in a primary to decide our candidate?Various Labour members have threatened to split, a coup or legal action. They might be unhappy with the result or the 400,000 new sign ups, but it doesn't invalidate the process.And one quote from Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto Chapter 2Quote:In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.And one from the Sunday Telegraph's Janet DaleyQuote:By downgrading the value of MPs’ votes in the leadership process, in favour of ordinary members and not-even-members, Labour has not strengthened its democratic credentials. On the contrary, it has demoted the expressed wishes of voters in the country in favour of party activists. An MP, who has probably been put into Parliament by thousands of people, now has no more standing in the choice of a party leader than a member (or non-member) who represents no one but himself. Explain to me please, how that strengthens democracy.Daly is an American.jondwhite wrote:And one quote from Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto Chapter 2Quote:In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.There is and has been since the start some ambiguity about our claim to be "the party of the working class". The declaration of principles is based on the assumption that there already exists a mass socialist party, but clearly this is not the case at the moment. So where does that leaves us? We are not a mass party and so cannot really claim to be party of the working class. We are socialist propagandist group and all we can claim at the moment is that at some future point such a mass socialist party has to arise of which we are or might be the embryo. As such we cannot hold primaries to decide our candidates or our policies as the working class are not socialist. We'd be swamped by non-socialists.But what about the time when there will be a mass socialist party? Then, something like primaries might be possible, especially as we are on record as saying that, to establish socialism, a majority of the working class does not have to be members of the socialist political party. But, if they are going to participate in the establishment of socialism, there will have to be some way for them to participate in political decision-making, such as mandating and controlling socialist MPs and councillors. Primaries could be the way. An alternative would be to say that a majority of workers will have to be in the mass socialist party. Or maybe just in the mass socialist movement which would be organised like the Labour Party used to be only socialist, i.e a political movement made up of a party individuals can join and affiliated trade unions (and cooperatives?). But whichever there will have to be democratic mechanisms to allow all workers who want to to participate.I don't think the 1848 quote from Marx and Engels is relevant. Or, if it is, it is putting forward a different scenario, which turned out not to happen, of the workers first forming a mass, non-socialist party which, in the course of events, would evolve into a socialist party. If anything this would be a justification for socialists to "enter" the mass party of the working class" (whatever it is) in anticipation of this. Which of course is how it has been interpreted by Trotskyists.Or could they have been thinking that there could be more than one "working class party" in one country (another possible scenario)? I don't think they meant that as can be seen in part 4 where they list the parties in different countries that "communists" don't oppose but work with (in?). For England it was the Chartists.
Quote:We are not a mass party and so cannot really claim to be party of the working class.Perhaps it is more accurate to describe ourselves as "the party of working class interests" or "the party in the interests of the working class".To describe ourselves simply as a "socialist propagandist group" i don't think offers a full reflection of our role…We are an active political party, standing candidates for election, albeit not too many, and issuing manifestos appealing for the votes of those who agree with our position. We are registered and have fought hard to retain our identity as a socialist party. I think socialist propagandist group is more appropriate to the reality of our companion parties in the WSM than to ourselves.Just a small quibble.
At the Carshalton Environment Fair today our stall was next to the Tories'. They were handing out a card headed "Choose London. Your vote can help choose the next Mayor of London" which explained:
Quote:The Conservative Party will be holding an online primary to select its candidate for the 2016 London Mayoral Election. Anyone in London who is on the electoral roll will be able to register to help the party choose who will stand for the Conservatives in the election next year (…) Four candidates have been shortlisted to stand in the open primary the Conservative Party is holding to select its candidate for the 2016 London Mayoral Election. Andrew Boff, Zac Goldsmith, Stephen Greenhaigh and Syed Kamall.Those on the stall confirmed that you needn't sign any declaration saying you supported "the aims and values" of the Conservative Party but simply be on the electoral roll and pay £1, i.e it's an "open primary".I can see a risk of manipulation here. The strongest Tory on their shortlist is probably Zac Goldsmith, the billionaire. So, if you are a Labour supporter, you wouldn't want him to be selected. So you pay your £1 and vote for Andrew Boff on the grounds that nobody called Boff will have a chance of winning or if the vote 1, 2. 3, 4 place Goldsmith as No 4.
Here's how an open primary in the Socialist Party would look:
Candidate 1 wrote:If elected as candidate I will express the agreed party case, and vote and instructed by the EC and my branch.Candidate 2 wrote:If elected as candidate I will express the party case agreed, and vote and instructed by my branch and the EC.Candidate 3 wrote:If elected as candidate I will express the party's agreed case, and vote and instructed by the EC and my branch.Candidate 4 wrote:If elected as candidate I will express the case the party has agreed, and vote and instructed by my branch and the EC.Candidate 5 wrote:If elected as candidate I will say and vote how I want.The result: Candidate 5 was expelled from the party. And rightly so. Oh, no, she wasn't a party member, was she?
Here's some of the details of how the online, open primary organised by the Tories to choose their candidate for mayor of London next year:https://registration.conservatives.com/ps/event/LondonMayorConservativeElection2015Don't know how it will work in practice.
Elections of members to executive committee take place every year, can they be done by open primary? As YMS states, this is not a policy issue, so this would not be an argument against open primaries.As for the statements 'we are not a mass party', and 'we'd be swamped', they would seem to be getting at two different things. 'We are not a mass party and cannot claim to be a party of the working class'. So many parties claim to be party of the working class, even Ukip and the Tories realise universal suffrage means the working class are in the majority, so its refreshing to hear claims not to be.Possibly due to overuse, the phrase is a bit meaningless (most parties are composed of a majority of workers) and as AJ recognises, 'the party [genuinely] seeking working-class emancipation' is a better descriptive phrase and also one used in Clause 7 of our principles. We may not be 'mass' but we are 'the party seeking working-class emancipation'.As 'the emancipation of the working-class will be the act of the working-class themselves' therefore we conduct ourselves democratically. Members control policy and currently elect other members to committees. As the party seeking working-class emancipation it is too important not to be parochial and regarding it as 'our' party and not for non-members. This is the sort of separation of socialists from the working-class we should avoid. Although Trots interpret it as 'vote labour!' I think parochialism may be what Marx was getting at in the Communist Manifesto Chapter 2.Workers need a socialist political party, not a socialist propangadist group. Why shouldn't workers be trusted with selecting which Socialist party members (who have all passed the membership test and nominated by branches) should serve on the executive committee of the party seeking working-class emancipation hostile to all other parties? Why is this being 'swamped'? Have workers chosen the worst candidate for the Labour party?The opposition to the erosion of the property qualification in the Reform Acts in the 19th Century was on the basis that the country belonged to those that owned it and could be better trusted to look after it with a stake in it. Nobody but fringe Ukipers argue for a return to the property qualification. Lets extend the franchise in the Socialist Party.Either we are the party seeking the emancipation of the working-class or we're not, either way we need the membership and democratic structures (not the policy) 'swamped' with the working-class in order to become a mass party.
Here's how an open primary for the Socialist Party EC would look:
Candidate 1 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 2 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 3 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 4 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 5 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Young Master Smeet wrote:Here's how an open primary for the Socialist Party EC would look:Candidate 1 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 2 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 3 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 4 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 5 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.So if members can choose between these, then why can't workers?
Workers can. First, though, they have to join the party. Members choose based on past performance, and suitability and ability, not policy.The party is a free association of socialists, who have come together for a purpose, I don't see why people outside that association should have any say in how it is run.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Workers can. First, though, they have to join the party. Members choose based on past performance, and suitability and ability, not policy.The party is a free association of socialists, who have come together for a purpose, I don't see why people outside that association should have any say in how it is run.because that purpose those workers have come together for is the emancipation of the working-class as a whole.
And that free association controls the message it puts to those workers through elections under universal franchise. A requirement for primaries denies minorities the opportunity to become majorities, imnsho, and are anti-democratic.
In open primary elections to EC, the message would still be controlled by that free association. A requirement for parties to use primaries sounds like the US system and perhaps if I avoided use of the term primaries and said open elections it would avoid these connotations.
The point of election isn't choosing people, its sacking people. Why would we guive our opponents the opportunity to sack our EC members? ffectively, what you're arguing for is an end to the membership test.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.