Op-Ed: We Do Not Need Anti-Democratic Primary Systems in Montana

Several days ago, Marc Racicot and Bob Brown published an editorial arguing Montana should adopt a top-two or a top-four primary election system. While both of these gentleman have cloaked their arguments in favor of these primary systems as methods of saving our "democracy", the truth is these primary election systems are fundamentally anti-democratic and wrong for Montana.

In a top-two primary system, the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election. In a top-four primary system, the top-four finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.

The purpose of these voting systems is to rig the outcome of an election for supposedly more "solution oriented" candidates. A top-two primary system does this by disenfranchising the members of the minority party and forcing them to vote for the more "moderate" candidate in the general election. A top-four primary system is even worse. Under a top-four primary system, the third place finisher could be declared the winner. That is because the votes of the bottom finishers are reassigned through a ranking system to the higher finishers until a person receives a majority. Imagine awarding the gold medal to the third place finisher at the Olympics. That can happen under a top-four system.

If we are going to make such a radical change to our primary election system, there should at least be a good reason. However, in their editorial, Racicot and Brown did not offer any evidence our electoral system in Montana is failing. Instead, both gentlemen, misrepresented how our primary election system works by inferring Montana has closed primaries. In reality, Montana has an open primary system. Under our system, voters do not register by political party and each person is entitled to pick which party to affiliate with at election time.

Moreover, there is no evidence our primary system is failing to generate "solution oriented" candidates. For over a generation, the Montana Legislature has been functionally controlled by a group of moderate Republicans. If you listen to members of the far right, the criticism is that there has been too much compromise in state government.

When Brown and Racicot served in office, the moderate wing of the Republican Party was in the majority. Now, the conservative wing comprises the majority of the Republican Party and it is obvious both gentlemen are uncomfortable with this fact. However, there is a reason why conservatives now form the majority of the Republican Party and it is called "democracy." The members of the conservative wing have been winning elections and ascending into positions of power because they are winning the most votes.

If Brown and Racicot want to change the Republican Party, they should do it the old fashioned way – by winning elections and making the argument their policy prescriptions are the best policy choices. We should not be trying to rig the outcome of our elections because some are unhappy with the decisions voters are making.