I try to keep up with politics - not to a huge extent, but I do try to have a fairly general idea of what is going on with the people who represent me.
When I heard on the news last night that the opposing political party to the upcoming runoff between two congressional candidates is trying to throw the vote, I thought it was a little annoying.
One of the two candidates in the primary, Wayne Parker, scored just shy of the needed majority at 49% of the vote, and his runner up, Cheryl Baswell-Guthrie, (who got just 19%) is now set to face him in a runoff next month. The other party only had two candidates and the winner of their primary, Parker Griffith, easily won the nomination at 90% of the vote.
Now some in that party are trying to upset the runoff in July. As reported by several news outlets, a political email group sent out a message that read, in part: "Anybody up for a little meddling in the runoff between Baswell Guthrie and Parker? I believe we can all agree on who would be the easiest to beat in November."
Voting in one primary and then in the opposing party's run off is apparently perfectly legal where we live, but I don't necessarily think it's necessarily 100% ethical.
When asked about the suggestion, Wayne Parker put it very well: "We've heard some of Dr. Griffith's supporters want to meddle in the primary and keep me off the ballot in November. People in North Alabama want honest and fair elections. This certainly undermines the spirit of that."
I may not necessarily have a horse in this race because I didn't vote for either of the candidates in the runoff, but I still think that they should have their fair chance. And, this party isn't without it's own blame too - the same situation came up in the presidential primaries (actually - on both sides: lots of Democrats voted for McCain and even more Republicans voted for Clinton!), but I do think that it undermines "the spirit of honest and fair elections" when you vote for the weaker candidate of the opposing party just to give a boost to your favorite candidate.
I guess that's just how politics work, but I don't have to agree with it.
2 comments:
Dear Rebecca -
Thank you for this fine post on crossover voting in primaries. Indeed, those who encourage it should be wary of its dangers.
A case in point: In the 1966 Georgia gubernatorial race the Republicans had a particularly strong candidate in "Bo" Calloway. In 1964 Calloway became the first Georgia Republican elected to Congress since 1875.
Since it was a forgone conclusion that he would win the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary in 1966, many Republicans crossed over to vote in the hotly contested Democratic race. They voted for the person they believed to be the weakest Democratic candidate, Lester Maddox, an ardent segregationist who once handed out pickaxes at his restaurant to demonstrate his opposition to racial integration. Maddox narrowly won the primary.
In the general election, Calloway won a slim plurality of votes, but because he failed to win a majority, the race went to the Georgia House of Representatives, who elected Maddox governor.
Thus, crossover Republicans in the Democratic primary inadvertently helped to elect one of the truly detestable figures in American politics.
I think it best when primary voters stick with their own party's primary. Let each party choose its best general election candidate. As the 1966 Georgia gubernatorial race shows, crossover voting can result in an outcome in which everybody loses.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good point, Charlie. I should have had you write this post! :)
Post a Comment