California's fight against hyperpartisan elections

Last Tuesday, California voters did something that got little attention in this part of the world — but which could change enormously the way politics works in this country.

They passed Proposition 14, which replaces traditional party primary elections with wide-open races. From now on, the two top vote-getters in primaries in our biggest state will go on to run against each other in general elections.

Regardless of their political party. There will soon be Democrats running against Democrats in some contests, and Republicans running against Republicans in others.

If the California system catches on and spreads to other states, it is certain to cause vast change to a system of elections that many think no longer works for the vast majority of people.

What we have now in Michigan and most other places in the country is a method of selecting candidates that contributes to an increasingly partisan and dysfunctional political culture.

Here’s how and why:

Many, if not most legislative districts are gerrymandered to be “safe” for one party or another. Take a district in Detroit. Because the vast majority of the population votes Democratic, everyone knows that the winner of the November election will always be a Democrat.

What that means is that the real contest is in the August primary. Primary elections produce much smaller turnouts that general elections – sometimes only 10 or 15 percent of eligible voters wind up voting. And those who vote in Democratic primaries tend to come from the party’s base of left-leaning liberal activists.

The result: Winners of primary elections in safe Democratic districts tend to be on the liberal-left end of the political scale.

The opposite pattern pertains in safe Republican districts. Voters in their primary elections tend to be farther to the right than the average voter. The predictable result: GOP primary winners tend to be on the conservative end of the political scale.

So our election system skews the results of both primary and general elections toward the extremes. And the result is the fiercely partisan and divisive politics we have today.

The system also disenfranchises moderates, centrists and Independent voters. Few candidates appeal to them in primary elections; doing so might alienate their more radical base voters, who are more likely to turn out anyway.

Most moderates’ voices aren’t heard much in general elections either, since they tend to live in gerrymandered districts.

Now, California has just torpedoed all that. Since from now on both Republican and Democratic candidates will be running in a free-for-all primary, they have an incentive to seek out the maximum number of votes, regardless of party. That means they will want to appeal to moderate “Rs and Ds” … and especially to independents! This is no small matter. In Michigan, for example, more and more citizens are identifying themselves as independents, while hardcore Rs and Ds are declining. Bill Ballenger, publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, thinks that the Rs and Ds tend to have about 30 percent each, while independents now represent as much as 40 percent of the voting public. And it’s not a happy two-fifths of the electorate: Most independents I talk with are frustrated at being dealt out of a politics that systematically marginalizes moderate folks.

That’s the case in Michigan, where our primary election system is concentrated in “safe” districts, either Republican or Democratic. It’s common knowledge that many Michigan legislative districts are gerrymandered to safely favor one political party or another.

Ballenger, the longtime guru of Michigan politics, estimates that of the 110 state House of Representative districts, around 43 are solidly Democratic and 28 safely Republican.

That’s almost two-thirds of all house districts.

Much the same prevails in the state senate, where of 38 districts, 15 are safe Democratic, seven GOP.

That’s 58 percent where one party has no chance to win.

That means the majority of citizens don’t live in competitive districts. The heads of both political parties know this. They are used to doing business that way.

And they don’t like the California solution at all.

Ron Weiser, now GOP state chairman, told me that an open primary could result in all kinds of unintended consequences. You could have a wealthy odd-ball candidate sneaking into the general election. Or you could have one party or the other urging partisans to vote for a guy who can’t win in the general. He also argues that many districts are not permanently gerrymandered. (Try telling that to a Democrat in Holland, or a Republican in Highland Park.)

Mark Brewer, his Democratic Party counterpart, argues that primary elections are the internal business of both political parties.

Instead, he argues, the reapportionment system should be reformed instead. “All a political party can ask for is a level playing field,” Brewer said. “Where districts are drawn to be competitive, it’s in the interest of both parties to select candidates who can appeal to moderate and independent voters.”

Ballenger disagrees. “The California vote is the triumph of the independents who have long resented a system that prevents their voices being heard in either Republican or Democratic primaries. It seems as though this waters down the power of both political parties. You can make a good case that this is a very good reform to try.”

I agree. Our political culture is far too partisan in part because of our system for choosing candidates. Adopting open primaries might well just open the door to a better and fairer political system. In any event, it is worth a try.

Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank which is sponsoring Michigan’s Defining Moment, a public engagement outreach campaign for citizens. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.