... won by the LibDems (gain from Independent), full results in
<http://www.24dash.com/news/Local_Government/2009-10-16-Lib-Dems-claim-
victory-in-Bedford-mayor-race>

In the first round, the LibDems came first, followed by the
Conservatives, two Independent candidates, then Labour (5th in an area
where they hold the Westminster seat!) with the Greens last. The
Conservative candidate was chosen in an open primary, a process that
drew some criticism from within the party.
--
Henry

wrote in message
news:66580118-7583-4f64-85d3-21069f8ab942@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> The Conservative candidate was chosen in an open primary, a process that
> drew some criticism from within the party.

I've been trying to work out what I think about open primaries for some
time.  On the face of it they seem absurd; why should any party's candidate
be chosen by people who aren't that party's supporters?  But I suppose they
can be defended as an acknowledgement that, if we're not going to have a
fairer electoral system, at least there should be efforts to ensure that the
candidates elected under the existing system have some element of broader
support.

I suppose my main objection to open primaries is that the whole thing is in
the hands of the parties.  There's no way that any party can be required to
select its candidates in such a contest, so the parties can continue to
operate the system to suit themselves, while giving the appearance of
inviting wider public participation.  The parties still decide who's on the
shortlist, so they still have the ultimate control.  And if they don't want
to run an open primary in a given seat, they don't have to.  Also, how much
are party supporters going to want to campaign for a candidate they haven't
selected themselves?

It strikes me that if the practice became widespread, you could end up with
a system where the parties were virtually unnecessary.  You'd end up with a
range of candidates in a seat, all of whom had been chosen by the electorate
as a whole rather than by individual parties, and then the same people who'd
chosen those candidates would be invited to choose between them.  At that
point you might as well cut out the parties and have a two-round voting
system, where the most popular candidates in the first round went forward to
the second - not that I can see the parties wanting to relinquish control in
that way.

All in all, I find it a very confusing development.  I tend to be wary of
anything that appears to be an American import, when our system is so
different from theirs.  Are there examples of its use in other European or
Commonwealth countries?

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry wrote:

>> The Conservative candidate was chosen in an open primary, a process that
>> drew some criticism from within the party.

> I've been trying to work out what I think about open primaries for some
> time.

"Primary" is a confusing term. It would be more accurate to use "caucus" for 
all but the Totnes selection as these are selections that involve 
bring-yourself meetings not simply voting in an election.

> I suppose my main objection to open primaries is that the whole thing is 
> in
> the hands of the parties. There's no way that any party can be required to
> select its candidates in such a contest, so the parties can continue to
> operate the system to suit themselves, while giving the appearance of
> inviting wider public participation.

A political party is a private organisation (it amazes me that the US has 
basically nationalised political parties) and should be entitled to operate 
as it likes. If people do not like its methods they are entitled not to vote 
for them, and to see if their fellow voters agree with them.

> At that
> point you might as well cut out the parties and have a two-round voting
> system, where the most popular candidates in the first round went forward 
> to
> the second - not that I can see the parties wanting to relinquish control 
> in
> that way.

I think this is the "jungle" primary used in Lousianna. It can have some 
bizarre side-effects, such as two candidates from the same party in the 
final two.

> All in all, I find it a very confusing development.  I tend to be wary of
> anything that appears to be an American import, when our system is so
> different from theirs.  Are there examples of its use in other European or
> Commonwealth countries?

Not sure. Australia has a system whereby before each election there's a 
(postal?) ballot of all party to select the candidate for each constituency, 
and sitting members can be challenged and even replaced (both the current 
Liberal leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, won 
the nomination for their seats by defeating the incumbents), but this is 
confined to party members. There are umpteen tales of party factions 
attempting "branch stacking" to seek to control the nomination, and some 
special measure cases where regional or state executives take over candidate 
selection to overcome this.

Whilst not an open primary method, it does open up selection in a wider way 
than is standard in the UK, and in particular sitting members are vulnerable 
and you do get cases of other MPs & Senators supporting challenges. 
Australian parties have a somewhat different approach to maintaining unity 
than British ones.

"Tim Roll-Pickering"  wrote in message
news:7k0m23F37dq9vU1@mid.individual.net...

> A political party is a private organisation (it amazes me that the US has
> basically nationalised political parties) and should be entitled to
operate
> as it likes. If people do not like its methods they are entitled not to
vote
> for them, and to see if their fellow voters agree with them.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.  If the electoral system is
throwing up results that don't reflect the will of the electorate then
that's an argument for reforming the electoral system, not for changing the
way political parties operate.

I suppose what the Tories are doing by flirting with the open primary system
is saying "well we don't support electoral reform, so we'll address the
problem by reforming our own selection procedures instead".  By doing so
they're ensuring that power remains with the parties rather than where it
ought to, with the voters.

--
Guy Barry