By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
The announcement today that the Conservatives are embracing open primaries in their selection in Totnes will impress many in our own movement who have argued for many months for Labour to adopt the system.
Will Straw has long advocated that they would be more democratic and would ultimately improve politicians' accountability and connection to the electorate, while David Miliband also came out to support the system in his John Smith Memorial speech earlier this week.
Others, such as Paul Halsall, are more sceptical, and there's some very interesting debate on the relative advantages of open primaries under Graham Hall's post about Labour membership, too.
I remain uncertain about how open primaries would be funded (surely the candidates with the most money behind them would hold an undue advantage) and - although I think they are a positive step forward and a way of improving our activism and our party enegery immeasurably - I do believe that reselections for every election and by-election are a logical first step that Labour can commit to now while open primaries are still debated and piloted.
What is certain, however, is that the Conservatives have taken a bold step today, and one which is sure to increase the intensity of debate on the merits of primaries in our own party.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
What would stop opposition supporters voting in primaries for the candidate they felt was least likely to win an election, in order to make it easier for their own party ? and vice versa. Which I think would tend to reinforce the safeness of safe seats.
On the other hand it would stop the selection of candidates by a tiny handful of people (does this happen - really I don't know) - but I guess if it does happen there's still nothing to stop the time honoured method of blitzing the AGM (or wherever the candidates are selected) with your supporters. I've certainly landed committee positions (not in politics) using that tactic. It seems pretty democratic to me.
I think I need more information.
Nils, having lived in the US for 14 years (and now as a citizen able to vote) I see huge benefits from the primary system. Most notably, no congressman (even in a party's safest seats) is safe him or herself. Plus, it enables people to remove a bad congressman without compromising their party loyalty.
As many of the other comments have mentioned, it would be a massive change from the current system and constituency parties (and central offices) would have to make a huge adjustment.
To address your comments -
1) Difference between open and closed primaries. Neither is truly "open" (and in terms of voting the conservatives' Totnes primary is more "open" than the US). In a US closed primary, the voter has to pre-register their choice of party with the elections commission. Then on polling day they can vote only in their registered party's primaries. In an open primary, no pre-registration is required, and the voter can vote in whichever primary they choose on the day, but can still only vote in one party's primary election for each position (e.g. President, Senator, Representative, Governor). A thing to remember is that in each state all primaries for all parties (for all positions) are held on the same day, and are managed by the elections commissions. Basically it's an election with polling stations and returning officers.
2) Opposition parties' interference. This is a good point. The US system has some pretty good in-built checks against this. As in (1) voters can only vote in one party's primary for each position. So if say Democrat activists wanted to troll the Republican primary, they would lose the right to vote for their preferred Democrat candidate. If it were a closed primary, the said Democrat would have to pre-register as Republican and would lose the right to vote in all the Democrat primaries in that election.
Also, because of the separation of powers, there isn't the opportunity (as there would be in the UK) for an opposing party interfere and "decapitate" a government minister or senior MP in a congressional primary. There would have to be safeguards to prevent, say, the LibDems trying to remove William Hague or Ed Milliband (remember the LibDems' miserable decapitation strategy against senior Tories in 2005 - it would be potentially easier in a primary).
Some other points to make -
3) In the US, anyone eligible can stand for any party nomination for any position. In 2008 a Portland lawyer ran in both Democrat and Republican primaries for state attorney general - and won both! So, in the extremes, Nick Griffin could run in a Labour primary, George Galloway could run in a Tory one and Norman Tebbit could run as a Green!
4) In virtually every case, eligible candidates must be local; i.e. live in the constituency, pay local taxes, etc. This prevents the national parties parachuting in "approved" candidates; no Georgia Goulds or A-listers seeking safe seats miles from their home town.
In short, the Totnes primary is bold move - 10 steps in the right direction. It will be an good experiment and will be interesting to see what issues come up.
In the US Primaries and the whole election system involve levels of spending and funding that our out of touch politicians could not reach in thier darkest daydreams. The levels of secrecy and unaccountability are still offensive and insult the intelligence of the public and we need to to truly re-engage further before considering such changes to the process. I think the first priority for both the Conservative and Labour Party is to sort out thier membership.
Bring politics back to the people for the long-term.
Can you cite some references for this please?
If not it will look like a stitch up between you and the party apparatchiks to give young Straw a bit of a boost.
BTW, what are his medium and long term ambitions?
I hadn't heard of him till he started writing stuff here...
Richard - I am yet to meet a Labour party member who claims that the sole purpose of their membership is to choose their PPC. I have not yet lived in a constituency where the selection has taken place but continue to remain a member, attend meetings, canvass, campaign and leaflet. This must be true for many other people too. In any case, the Labour party (as with all parties across the developed world) has to contend with the fact that membership has already declined dramatically. From 1m members in the 1950s, the party is now down to 170,000 members. Is it really democratic for an average of 260 people to choose the local candidate? In any case, the primary system I advocate would only be open to people who register a desire to vote. This might further the decline in membership of the Labour Party as we currently know it but it would fundamentally alter the relationship between a local community and the party.
Alex - the American system is blighted by the 1st Amendment which prevents spending caps. We don't have that problem and could set expenditure levels wherever we wanted. And, by the way, there are currently no expenditure caps in CLP selections.
I guess that has already begun with the decline in support for Labour in the NW and NE and the resultant emergence of the BNP.
Only if your conclusion is correct....
This Totnes experiment is much more radical as it involves a postal ballot of all the voters in Totnes. It will be interesting to see how it goes. It's probably quite expensive though: a mailout to everyone, and a freepost envelope for them all to mail their ballots back.