Don’t fall for disinformation about CI-126 and CI-127
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Opponents of the two ballot initiatives to open up Montana’s election system are entitled to prefer the status quo, but it’s sad to see disinformation used in their advocacy. Here are principal claims being used, followed by reality. Claim: Montana already has open primaries. Reality: Although Montana voters can choose which party’s primary ballot to complete, they are legally prohibited from casting votes for, say, a Republican for office A and a Democrat for office B. This unnecessarily restricts voters from expressing their preferences. Claim: The initiatives are radical experiments funded by leftist billionaires. Reality: Efforts are led by a bipartisan group of Montana leaders, including former Republican legislators. Claim: The reforms will require candidates to spend more money, hence increasing the influence of outside groups: Reality: There’s no good reason to think that open primaries will increase the cost of running or the money coming from outside Montana. Anybody who thinks our current system doesn’t have non-Montana money hasn’t been paying attention to the US Senate race. Claim: The initiatives would create “California-style” elections. Reality: The reforms proposed are nothing like how elections work in California. Claim: CI-127 would require runoff elections that have lower turnout, thus allowing officials to be elected with fewer votes. Reality: Voter turnout in our current party-specific primaries is already quite low, allowing voters with the most extreme positions the most influence. In an open primary, the entire electorate will have incentive to express their preferences. Claim: The initiatives will make Montana politics more negative and polarizing. Reality: The reverse is far more likely. A recent objective analysis shows that in Alaska, voter participation, healthy competition, and bipartisan legislating all increased after similar reforms were adopted. A conservative Republican (governor), moderate Republican (US Senate) and a moderate Democrat (US House) were all elected by an identical Alaska electorate, suggesting voters there chose individual leaders rather than blindly following party affiliation. Montana voters are capable of doing similarly.
Rich Harris
Charlo
