Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.

 

8 July 2014

Why a top two primary appeals to Montana’s GOP establishment

Revised. All wings of Montana’s Republican Party share two beliefs/grievances:

  1. Libertarian candidates sometimes draw enough votes from Republican candidates in the general election that Democrats win by pluralities. As I reported yesterday, that’s happened four times in 26 statewide elections since 2004.

  2. Democratic crossover votes are polluting the Republican Primary, sometimes changing the outcome. That happens, but my research suggests the outcome is rarely changed.

But Republicans disagree on the remedies.

Establishment Republicans, including most party leaders, prefer a top two primary. Insurgent Republicans, the tea party faction, prefer a closed primary and a runoff in general election contests in which the candidate with the most votes does not receive a majority.

At the GOP’s convention in June, delegates — there were approximately 200 — endorsed a closed primary and a general election runoff. Almost immediately, the leadership began slow walking the convention’s preference, with some party leaders openly declaring a preference for the top two.

The same party leaders also are not eager to file a lawsuit in federal court challenging Montana’s open primary on First Amendment grounds, a proposal advanced by Bozeman attorney Matt Montforton and legislative candidate in HD-69. Montforton believes that only a federal lawsuit can force Montana to adopt a closed primary.

So why does the GOP establishment prefer a top two primary to a closed primary and general election runoff? There are, I think, four main reasons:
  1. Keeping Libertarians off the general election ballot is the top priority. Right now, the four elections that have the GOP so steamed were dominated by Democrats and Republicans, but probably perturbed by Libertarians. But it’s possible that in a three-way election between candidates of equal weight, a Democrat and a Libertarian might advance to the runoff. A top two eliminates that possibility, provided a Republican is one of the top two vote getters.

  2. A top two obviates the expense of a runoff, always a consideration, especially for the tighter-fisted party, and spares the county clerks and recorders of the bother of conducting another election.

  3. A top two could send two Republicans to the general election in districts with no Democratic primary and a very light turnout. That would have happened in HD-2 (Libby) and HD-3 (Columbia Falls) in 2010. It’s possible that could happen in a district that Democrats reasonably could expect to win in the general election.
    top_two_distortions
  4. A top two does not require amending Montana’s constitution. A runoff to achieve a majority does. A closed primary can be created through the legislative process, but a closed primary doesn’t kick the Libertarians off the ballot.

A top two also opens the possibility of a Democrat and Independent, or Libertarian or other third party candidate, but not a Republican, advancing to the general election. Montana’s GOP establishment no doubt recognizes that possibility, but reckons it highly improbable, and an acceptable risk given the high probability that as political divisions now stand, a top two would keep the despised Libertarians off the general election ballot.

A closed primary ensures that Democratic crossovers will not change the outcome of a Republican primary. It can be combined with a standard runoff election, or an instant runoff, to ensure the nominee receives a majority. (I suspect that in Mississippi, McDaniel’s camp sorely wishes an instant runoff had been in place, for that would have ensured that only the voters who cast ballots in the primary would have cast ballots in the runoff.)

Although it sounds contradictory at first, the GOP could embrace both a closed primary and a top two, obtaining the closed primary first and replacing it with a top two later. Whether that makes tactical and strategic sense is another question.

I think the GOP establishment underestimates how messy a top two primary could be. Suppose eight Republicans and seven Democrats filed for governor — and were joined by a Libertarian, a constitutionalist, a white supremacist, a libertine, and a proselytizing vegan. In theory, five percent plus a couple of votes would be enough for the top two. It’s an opportunity for mischief made to order for crackpots and a Man on a White Horse.

I also think the GOP’s insurgents overestimate the mischief wrought by crossover voting. Or to put it another way, I think their outrage may be way out of proportion to the indignity actually suffered. In Montana’s 3 June 2014 primary, elections were held at four levels of government: federal (statewide), regional (PSC districts), countywide, and legislative district. Except in rare cases, almost always local, that tends to keep partisans home. And where crossover voting does occur, it does not necessarily result in votes for a preferred opposition candidate. In the GOP primary for the U.S. House, for example, some Democrats would have voted for Matt Rosendale on the theory he would be easiest for a Democrat to defeat, while others would have voted for Ryan Zinke on the theory he would do the least harm to Democratic programs if elected to Congress.

Sorting this out will take the Republicans some time, and will require a lot of patience and mutual respect from all factions. The model for a discussion of an issue this divisive is the convention convened in Massachusetts in 1788 to consider ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The model to avoid is Pennsylvania’s. Montana’s Republicans should consider organizing some history study groups before further fighting their civil war on how to protect Republican candidates from Libertarians and the voters who like them.