One of the original purposes behind political primaries was to break the hold of party bosses when it came to selecting candidates who would run for public office in a general election. Primaries give voters a direct voice in picking the candidates.
That’s why we were perturbed to learn in a recent Denver Post article that the political parties in Colorado have become like the bosses of old when it comes to the 2008 race for U.S. Senate. The contest was prompted by Sen. Wayne Allard’s decision to retire.
The Republican Party invoked a formal process known as Rule 11 to discourage other candidates from challenging their handpicked contender, former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer. Rule 11 gives the national party the OK to endorse a candidate.
The Democrats have not imposed such a formal process but are conducting backroom conversations in an effort to ensure that U.S. Rep. Mark Udall has no challengers next August.
It’s not surprising. And the reality is that there has been an absence of credible challengers to either Udall or Schaffer. Still, it is presumptuous for party bureaucrats to think they have the right — or the power, for that matter — to nudge out everyone but their preferred candidates.
As a general rule, political primaries are good for the democratic process. They give voters more of a choice. (Although the upcoming presidential primaries are a good example of primary overload). Primaries also force candidates to define themselves, hone their message and listen to voters.
Not having a primary probably helps individual candidates, but so could stealing ballots — to use an admittedly extreme example of an action benefitting a party or politician at the expense of the public. If a candidate in one party is stuck with a primary while his or her rival in another party has none, the primaried candidate could be disadvantaged in the general election. In addition, in this era of multimillion-dollar contests, primaries can be a drain on candidates’ coffers, leaving less cash for the general election battle.
But a primary is not always damaging. Take U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, who ran for his current seat in 2004. Salazar at the time was Colorado’s attorney general and the far more experienced candidate. But he faced Mike Miles, an energetic and likeable political neophyte who stunned the party brass by getting more delegate votes than Salazar at the Democratic assembly. That meant he took the top line on the ballot.
Rather than match Miles’ liberal/ populist positions, Salazar deftly showed off his centrist side. After his come-from-behind victory over Miles, Salazar appeared even more moderate to Coloradans and was better positioned to take on Republican candidate Pete Coors.
Colorado’s primary is more than seven months away. Qualified candidates still have time to run for the Senate and shouldn’t feel inhibited from taking their case to the voters.
