Weekly Opinion Editorial
PRIMARY SHOULD REMAIN AS IS!

Caucus system is move backward!

By Steve Fair

Last week, State Representative Charles Key, (R-OKC) filed two bills that would reform how Oklahoma conducts elections. HB 1057 would require political parties to pay for presidential primary elections. HB 1058 would change the required number of signatures to get a political party on the ballot. Currently it takes five percent of the total votes cast in the last general election to have a party on the ballot. Key’s proposal would change that number to a flat 5,000 signatures.
*****
“When you look at all 50 states and their signature requirements, Oklahoma has either the worst or the second worst ballot access law in the country. Most of the other states we have looked at for a comparison set their requirement at between 5,000 and 10,000 signatures, “ Key says.
*****
Thom Holmes, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Oklahoma, requested that Rep. Key file HB 1057. Said Holmes, “Participating in the Election process, both by voting and by having the opportunity to run for office as a candidate, are worldwide symbols of freedom and they should be encouraged, not discouraged in Oklahoma. One of the things that makes America great is the concept that competition yields a superior product.”
*****
Key said that presidential primary elections are expensive and with the state in its current budget crisis, it needs to save the estimated $1 million plus cost to hold primary elections. “Parties in other states choose their various nominees in convention or by different means. Oklahoma for many years used the caucus method and it worked fine. The caucus method would bring more presidential candidates to the state and voters would have a better chance to meet them and interact with them.”
*****
Key is correct that presidential primaries cost money, but one of the primary functions of government is to conduct legal and fair elections. This is not a new issue for Key. At the state GOP convention in 2009, Key and several others proposed that Oklahoma Republicans return to the caucus system and ditch the presidential primary.
*****
At the convention, I wrote a paper entitled, “We’re doing fine Oklahoma!” http://stevefair.blogspot.com/search?q=WE+ARE+DOING+FINE%2C+OKLAHOMA%21 In it, I wrote, “The truth is a caucus system would empower a few influential activists who believe they know better than the general population what Oklahoma needs. A caucus system would establish an oligarchy, which is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society- aka Political Pharisees. That is never good and goes completely against the principles of the U.S. Constitution which is inclusive and protects us from the establishment of an oligarchy.”
*****
In a debate the evening before the convention, I asked my fellow delegates to ‘educate, not exclude’ those less involved members of our Party. The proposal to move to a caucus system was soundly defeated, but the proponents have never given up.
*****
“Both of my bills are about fairness,” Key said. “There is nothing fair about taxpayers funding primary elections in which they don’t take part and there is nothing fair about restrictive ballot access.”
*****
Key is half right- his proposal- HB 1058- to lower the number of signatures to allow for ballot access is fair. Oklahoma’s signature requirement is excessive and restrictive. It needs to be changed. However his proposal to get the two major political parties to pay for the primary is flawed.
*****
First, the actual cost of a presidential primary is small in the grand scheme of things. The savings realized by the elimination of the presidential primary would represent only $250, 000 a year. Oklahoma’s state budget in 2011 is 6.7 billion.
*****
Second, Key knows that if HB 1057 became law, it would be difficult for the two major parties to come up with the money to pay for a primary. Party fundraising is a challenge. People contribute to candidates, but not to a Party. For that reason, the Ds and Rs might consider the other option he mentions- the caucus.
*****
Third, most voters in the presidential primary don’t realize they are voting for someone to represent them at a national nominating convention. If we move to a caucus system, a few influential activists will select those delegates, leaving out the general public. That is regressive and not fair.