BCT Editorial – 6/15/10

Lobbying for an open primary is an ongoing cause of the Times.  Previous editorials advocating an open primary include “Vote,” “Middle ground,” “Free agents,” and “Switch hitters.”

In an open primary system, you can vote in any party’s primary regardless of your own party affiliation.  In some cases, you can vote in one party’s primary for one office and in another party’s primary for a different office.

If a person doesn’t want to check a party affiliation box on a voter registration form, why should he get to vote in that party’s candidate selection process?  This would be like allowing West Virginians or Ohioans to vote in Pennsylvania elections.  Oops, perhaps I’ve given the Times an idea. <g>

In my mind, open primaries just make interparty primary shenanigans more likely.  You may recall in 2004, soon-to-be-former Sen. Arlen Specter (now officially a D, then a RINO) actively lobbied Democrats to change their party affiliation for the primary so they could help him beat his opponent, Pat Toomey.  An open primary would make primary tampering easier because participating voters wouldn’t have to go through the effort of submitting a change of party affiliation beforehand.

I have to conclude the Times believes there’s some advantage to the left from an open primary.  Could that be because “independents” tend to be like smoke in the wind?