Use of Open Primaries for Candidate Selection

[PaulJRobinson]

This pull request has been automatically generated by prose.io.

[Floppy]

Encouraged, or required? Presumably we could make it so this must be the case?

[PaulJRobinson]

Well I think it's in party interests to do this: they end up with better
candidates more likely to win; we end up with MPs who are more accountable
to their constituents than their party. But if they'd rather not then I
guess that's up to them and they will suffer at the polls. I suspect that
if they knew they had resources available to do this, then more of them
would happen. I don't think compulsion would be required.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 4 February 2014 13:43, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

Encouraged, or required? Presumably we could make it so this must be
the case?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/96#issuecomment-34059902
.

[philipjohn]

Given most folks probably won't ever think about this, despite whatever encouragement is given, the parties will continue to select candidates how they please.

I mused earlier to myself about requiring political parties to use a proportional voting system internally, so I'd be more inclined to support requiring open primaries as part of a larger effort on democratic reform.

[Floppy]

I think @philipjohn makes the right point there on requiring it. If it's an option, most people won't bother.

[philipjohn]

👍 to this in general, but would also like to see the R word sneak it's way in :)

[frankieroberto]

I like the idea of primaries, especially for significant posts like Mayor, however should the state really pay for resources to run these? Would the funding be open to all parties, or just the 'major' ones, defined in some way? And would we end up getting election fatigue, with numerous primaries prior to each general election?

[PaulJRobinson]

There is an argument for suggesting that parties should fund this themselves (and it's in their own interests to do so) which is essentially what happens now. Just trying to think of any other ways to encourage such a good practice. The Electoral Commission estimate the cost at £35,000 per open primary, per party (and there are 650 constituences). If we assume 5 candidates/parties per constituency that's over £100M each election just on the primaries! The general election itself costs another £100M on top of that as things currently stand. Are people happy for me to close this PR?

[philipjohn]

Would it be acceptable to provide financial incentives through state funding that parties receive?

[philipjohn]

Talking about cost, this article might be interesting: The UK spends approximately £150 million per year administering elections

[PaulJRobinson]

I agree elections are very expensive to administer. But I'm not sure the state funding Open Primaries (and doubling the cost of running elections) would be right. I think parties should fund Open Primaries themselves. Think this may be one area where the free market may actually work: ie once one local party does it, the others will follow. I don't see why the state should pay for something that is in their own interests.

[Floppy]

I asked Douglas Carswell on Twitter what his thoughts were around funding open primaries (seeing as he was talking about it), and his idea was that they would piggyback on existing elections, thus reducing the cost. Not sure where he thinks the remaining cost would be covered from though, and I'm not sure we have enough elections to be able to piggyback primaries onto them.

[Floppy]

Looking back at this, I now think:

1. I agree with the principle of what's being suggested.
2. I would like to see it stronger, but agree that that would need details on financing.
3. But, I would also like to see a detailed PR on election and campaign financing reform anyway, so perhaps that's best done there.

That makes me a 👍 as this stands, with room for future improvement. Can we get a few other agreements based on the idea that this is a step in the right direction, if not necessarily what we think is the whole solution? Would be nice to get this merged and move on.

[Floppy]

Incidentally, it'll mean that if we put up candidates, we'll have to work out a way to hold open primaries :)

[philipjohn]

...we'd have to put our money where our mouths are ;)

Yep, general principle is sound and we shouldn't be concerning ourselves too much with detail. 👍

[Floppy]

@frankieroberto are you happy with the wording here as this stands (more 'encouraged' than 'required')? We'll deal with funding separately.

[frankieroberto]

Sounds good to me.

One minor point: the Labour Party recently adopted Primaries, but rather than being fully open, you have to be a 'registered supporter' to take part. That seems within the spirit of the rules to me?

[PaulJRobinson]

It's a halfway house/fudge. The point of a primary being truly open is that all the electors are eligible to take part regardless of views or other party memberships. It means the eventual party candidate is far more likely to have broader public appeal than someone who only appeals to the party faithful. With 'registered supporters' you're still preaching to the converted.

[Floppy]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Agree	👍	:thumbsup:	1
Abstain	✋	:hand:	-1
Block	👎	:thumbsdown:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.