Just when I thought that elections couldn’t get any crazier, Maine, my adopted state in which I have now spent more than half of my life, has taken a wrecking ball to the concept of a political party selecting the candidates who will represent it in a general election. In reality, Maine is merely a microcosm of the rest of the country. Nevertheless, a state in which folks are wired in a different way has found a way to put its unique stamp on a process that although well-intentioned is now running amok and can’t be tamed.
A little background
Upon moving to Maine in the winter of 1992, we were introduced to the cherished New England tradition – the Town Meeting. Not that other places don’t hold Town Meetings, but they just don’t cherish them the same way – or so I’ve been told. Go back and watch any number of Gilmore Girls episodes if you don’t believe me. And yes, Connecticut is part of New England. Anyway, …
Town Meeting, that shining example of the purest form of participatory democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Town Meeting, that event where people are called to leave their warm comfortable homes in the dead of winter to assemble in a cold high school gym or auditorium.
Town Meeting, the place where people sit for hours in uncomfortable bleachers or chairs waiting for that one issue that has everyone in an uproar to be voted on – typically Question 50 of the 90 questions to be voted on at the meeting.
Town Meeting, the place where at the end of the night, long after everyone who came out specifically to vote on Question 50 has gone home, a motion is made to bring Question 50 up again for reconsideration if the original vote didn’t “go the right way.”
A few years back, our town voted to switch from an in-person Town Meeting to an election with the Questions printed on a ballot – most likely due to the increasing presence of interlopers from Massachusetts like us.
And if you’re switching to an election, why hold a special election in the middle of winter? Let’s combine it with the state primary election in June.
More people will vote they said. It will be more fair they said.
And so, we have been voting in the Town Election each June.
Which brings us to this week.
Voting – A Civic Duty, A Sacred Privilege
A few weeks ago, the signs started appearing around town.
Vote No on Question 13!
Vote so-and-so for Select Board.
Say Yes to Schools, Say Yes to Kids – Approve the School Budget!
Save Our Schools – Vote No on the School Budget!!
Plus, signs for the state primary:
- Re-elect what’s-her-name to the Maine House.
- Same old dude as usual, State Senate.
One candidate’s sign consisted of his name, State Representative, and a big picture of an adorable dog (which may or may not be his). He’s got my vote!
Dutiful citizens that we are, as we have done each year since the pandemic, my wife and I went online to the Secretary of State’s website request an absentee ballot. (Individually, of course. It would be wrong to request a ballot in someone else’s name.) The process is pretty straightforward. The state forwards the request to the town, the Town Clerk approves the request and sends out the ballot. You complete the ballot, sign the envelope, and drop it off in the box at Town Hall at your convenience.
Easy peasy.
Until this year.
My wife’s request for a ballot was denied.
She received a form e-mail from the state and then a personal e-mail containing the language from the state’s form e-mail from the town explaining the rejection.
It’s A Party – Everyone is Invited
Like the plurality of voters nationwide and until recently the majority of voters in Maine, my wife is not enrolled in a political party. That hasn’t had an impact on here ability to vote in the Town Election. Until now.
Beginning in 2024, Maine switched to a “semi-open primary” system. Prior to 2024, Maine has a “kinda, sorta” closed primary system.
Under the “closed” system, you had to belong to a party to vote in that party’s primary. However, you could “join” the party on the day of the primary, simply by asking for a ballot on election day.
The catch was that once you enrolled to vote in the primary you then remained a member of that party unless you waited a few months and then remembered to make the trip to Town Hall to unenroll. Combine a couple of heated primaries in the past few years with equal parts inertia and indifference and you understand why the number of unenrolled voters in Maine has dropped from a majority in 2018 to 28.8% today (below both major parties).
Under the new “semi open” system, you will remain unenrolled even if you vote in the Democratic, Green, or Republican primary. (For sake of completeness, it’s only “semi open” because if you are enrolled in a party, you can’t vote in a different party’s primary.)
The catch – and it’s a big one.
Apparently, in order to vote in the Town Election, you are required to vote in a party primary – or at least accept and return a ballot from one of the parties.
The explanation: The packets are all prepared and include a primary ballot.
I would love to say that I’ve never made a decision related to a state assessment program for a similar reason, but …
Can I not return the primary ballot? Well, that would throw off our counts.
Not quite a direct answer, but those of us who identify as data people, can hear and feel the sheer terror in her voice at the thought of counts that don’t match.
What’s The Big Deal?
Obviously, my wife has not been disenfranchised. She picked the “Green Party” primary ballot which consists of one line for a write-in option.
Why devote a blog post to this? If the current system were serving anybody even reasonably well, I wouldn’t be moved to write about it. Nothing to see here, move right along.
But it isn’t.
What has occurred with the primary system is remarkably similar to the situation I described with accountability systems in a recent post.
It is another example of a series of well-intentioned decisions made over a number of years, each made with the goal of improving a perceived flaw, that ultimately resulted in producing a system that is overly complicated, achieves none of its original goals, pisses everyone off, and frankly, does more harm than good.
Like many of the causes that emerged from the social upheaval of the Sixties, the initial intent was noble: take the selection process out of the darkness of smoke-filled back rooms into the light; set more places at the decision-making table.
Over the past 55 years, however, that initial desire for more inclusiveness and diversity in the decision-making process led to people being under the illusion that party primaries must be open, free, and binding (i.e., just like actual elections). That illusion inevitably resulted in the delusional state we find ourselves in now.
From the beginning, there were signs that maybe the primary system might not work so well. In 1972 and 1984, the Democrats nominated candidates who lost 49 of 50 states. The candidate their primaries produced in 1980 (the incumbent) won 6 states.
As the process evolved over the years, the results were predictable:
- When primaries are closed and binding, party activists most committed to voting nominate extremists.
- When primaries are open and binding, you tend to get populists who appeal to the right-leaning or left-leaning lowest common denominator.
Recent history…
- Handing the process and the power to the people gave us Populist candidates with virtually no experience in politics and even less in governing in 2008 and 2016.
- The Republican Party didn’t want Trump in 2016.
- The Democratic Party didn’t want Biden in 2020, but they wanted Sanders (not even a Democrat) even less.
- Neither party is thrilled with the choices the primary system has given us this time around. And most of the country agrees with them.
If it’s broke, fix it
Did the system need to be fixed so that it was more representative and inclusive? Yes.
Are primaries a critical performance test for potential candidates? Yes.
Are aspects of the process of selecting candidates better now than in 1972? Also, yes.
But the primary purpose of a primary is to provide information to assist a political party in choosing the best candidate to represent it and its members in a general election.
If a Party wants to hold a closed caucus in Iowa or primary in New Hampshire that’s their prerogative. If they want to hold a totally open primary in California or New York or Michigan or Kansas to test candidates’ appeal to the general public, have at it. Open up phone lines for voting at the end of a debate or baking contest, sure, why not.
Ultimately, it is the Party, not me and you and a dog named Boo, which is responsible for, and should be held accountable for, selecting the candidate who best represents it.
If people don’t like the choices a Party is making, perhaps we’ll get some viable new parties. That certainly wouldn’t be the worst outcome.
Do whatever it takes to pick your best candidate.
And then sometime around Labor Day, let me know who that is.
Schedule a couple of debates (actual debates) for late September, early October.
Open early voting in mid-October.
Everything ends on Election Day.
Then we get ready for Thanksgiving and start watching Christmas movies.
Embrace the Absurd 