Tax dollars and federal and state governments should not pay for party primaries, which are, or at least ought to be, essentially private affairs wherein what ought to be a private organization (a political party) chooses its candidate(s). Likewise with political conventions.
Defund Party Primaries
Why Is This Idea Important?: Political parties are, or at least ought to be essentially private associations. The conditions of membership and how they pick people to run for public office ought to be their affair and not the business of government. Any group of people ought to be able to organize a poltical party on any legal basis and put forward whatever qualified candidates they want (those qualifications having been set by the federal and state constitutions and by statute). Getting the government out of the business of funding primaries and conventions would both save money and foster democracy. People get a chance to vote for who they want in general elections. If they care enough they can join a political party and help choose that party's candidates by whatever means it chooses.
Submitted by Robert Gabrielsky 2 years ago
Comments (2)
I think this is a very bad idea. Funding the primaries has a civic benefit that more than justifies the cost. Voter owned elections are based on the same theory, that if the public bears the costs, the public benefits from a more level, open process.
In terms of general elections, I completely agree with you. However, my comments are reserved completely and specifically for Party functions per se. Historically speaking and theoretically at least, up to the present, parties are private institutions, like the Rotary or a labor union.
If I am not a member of that organization I might have an opinion as to who might be the best leader of that group, but I have no right to participate in the choosing of its leaders, nor to I have any obligation as a private citizen to pay for their choosing or how they are chosen.
Of course, today, American political parties are not membership organizations and they function as quasi pubic bodies, but thus was not always the case, nor do I think the public weal is well served by putting what are more properly private bodies essentially under government control. This was one of the most disaterous and antidemocratic "reforms" of the progressive era and it ought to be undone.
Any group of citizens (or residents for that matter) has a perfect right to organize themselves any way they see fit and put forward qualified candidates whose views they share for public office. Democracy would be much better served by such an approach.