Idaho voters rejected ranked choice voting, not an open primary
Guest Editorial by Steve Taggart
Last November, Idaho voters rejected Proposition 1 by a margin of 69.6% to 30.4%. The measure would have modified Idaho’s current candidate nominating process from one where each party holds a separate primary to an “open primary” where all voters, regardless of party, picked the four candidates who would appear on the general election ballot. In that general election, it proposed that voters could rank their choices so that a winner obtained a majority of the votes cast.
While Idaho voters rejected Proposition 1, there is evidence that they favor an open primary. Boise State University last year surveyed Idahoans and found that nearly 58% backed the concept of an open primary but only 34% supported ranked choice voting.
The Legislature should consider adopting an open primary by itself with one tweak.
Melaleuca Inc. Executive Chairperson Frank VanderSloot, one of the leaders of the opposition to Proposition 1, last year stated: “There is a good argument for an open primary. ... There are valid arguments for an open primary. ... If we want to do an open primary let’s do an open primary without ranked choice gimmickry.”
Much of the opposition to the measure, led by the Idaho Republican Party, focused on the complexity of ranked choice voting. That was smart on their part given the much lower support for ranked voting.
That raises the question: Should the Legislature revisit the issue and implement an open primary without ranked choice voting? If so, what could such a reform measure look like?
Given that Idahoans like the concept of an open primary, where all candidates run together regardless of party, that element could be the first building block. The language in Proposition 1 was that the top four vote-getting candidates in the primary would advance to the November general election.
Given Idahoans’ Republican nature, that could often result in multiple Republicans making the general election ballot in many races.
That creates a conundrum. Imagine that three Republicans advance for, say, the office of governor and the other nominee is a Democrat. That could create the potential for the Republicans to divide the Republican vote and allow the Democrat to be elected even though most voters might favor a Republican candidate (just not the same one). That violates the concept of majority rule.
In Proposition 1, that was the reason for the ranked choice voting provision, to create a method for eventual winner to obtain a majority of the vote. But Idahoans rejected that element last November.
There is an another alternative and it rests in current Idaho law. Today, Idaho cities have the option to adopt a runoff system. My community of Idaho Falls does so. If a candidate for city office doesn’t get a majority of the vote in the general election, a runoff election with the second-place finisher is then held shortly after. Several other states use a runoff election for partisan positions when candidate falls short of a majority in the general election.
The Legislature could combine Proposition 1’s top-four primary with Idaho’s current municipal top-two runoff election system, but only if the top general election candidate falls short of a majority.
That combination would ensure that the winner would get a majority in either the general election or in the runoff election. And it would minimize the possibility of candidates in the general election, from the same party, cannibalizing each other.
There are downsides to such a system, particularly lower turnout in a runoff election. But other states have deemed that acceptable to obtain majority support for an elected officeholder.
The Legislature should explore implementing such a system to implement the preference of Idaho voters for an open primary.
About the Author
Steve Taggart, of Idaho Falls, is an attorney who has worked in Republican politics since his teens, both in campaigns and as chief of staff for a congressional office.
Thanks for this. You're correct, that most Idahoans liked the idea of the open primary, but bought in to the poison pill assault on RCV.
There is a national bill that is in the Congress right now for nationwide open primaries (HR 115): https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/FMfcgzQZSsBptPZQVxfqtqPkZrZwgxvc
It makes sense for states to be able to determine whether they want to go to the trouble and expense of runoff elections, or if they want to do it on election day with RCV. Regardless of the propaganda, all RCV does is ensure the winner achieves a majority of the vote, just as happens in runoff elections.
To your 'divide the vote' point: In this most republican of all states, there would be a real possibility that all the primary candidates would be of one party, but the voters would STILL be able to choose a republican candidate whose views are congruent with their own, rather than being limited to candidates vetted by the party who are beholden to the IFF and whichever out of state money contributed to their campaign. If there were a democratic candidate and they were elected due to vote splitting among the republicans, you'd have a democrat for at least two years. Life would go on, and the next cycle, the republican candidates would likely do maneuvering like Nick Begich did in Alaska, and convince some of the other candidates to withdraw.
If Prop 1 had passed, we'd still have the rightward swing in the legislature that we have from the last election, but voters would be able to a wider choice of candidates in 2026.
Closed partisan primaries are rigged elections in a one-party state. It isn't working well for Idaho.
I appreciated Mr. Taggart's perspective on RCV and OP and it reflects many of the concerns - and a circumscribed understanding - of the many favorable aspects of RCV that were not made clear to voters. I completely agree with Mr. Taggart's assessment of OP and it solves some of our candidate issues for the primary. A glaring issue we have in Idaho is the undue weight in our primaries; less than a third of voters participate but make the choices, and often a single candidate goes forward to the general election. Unfortunately then, the majority of voters that go to the polls for the general election, now have little choice.
Having RCV with a top 3 to 5 candidates moving up from the primaries has several advantages. We must all now engage in that long standing and venerable democratic process of having candidates debate their ideas, listen to their constituents, and form their platforms accordingly. Voters must now take up their democratic duty and be attuned and engage with the candidates, selecting those that most closely represent their issues and concerns. In the general election Idaho's favored party, Republican, will continue to be well represented. As we know these days, Republicans come in a variety of stripes and voters would then be able to choose among them. Ranking candidates gives voters the option of telling them how well they are addressing their issues and often we like more than one candidate. Having a majority rather than a plurality eliminates expensive run-offs, where voter participation is more like a primary. Subtler advantages is the elimination of a spoiler party or candidate, general elections tend to be more civil as issues are the focus, denigrating opponents or negative campaigns are lessened, and candidates are focused on constituents, not agendas.
All said, it may be that with OP, which is more easily understood, is where we start. I would hope that we engage in serious debate, education, and thoughtful consideration of the many positive aspects that RCV can give to voters. Certainly in this last ballot initiative, the lack of understanding of both how RCV works and it's advantages were not widely understood. As a last comment, it is interesting that the Idaho legislature passed a bill last year making RCV illegal. That tells us how powerful it can be.