Open primaries: should the Lib Dems adopt the ‘Totnes model’?

The announcement today from Totnes of the winner of the Tories’ first ‘open primary’ – in which the party’s Parliamentary candidate has been chosen not by party members, but by over 16,000 voters in the constituency – will prompt all political parties to ask the simple question: is this the future?

The arguments in its favour are obvious, both in terms of ‘democratic renewal’ and canny campaigning:

  • it has provoked national interest;

  • the 25% turnout suggests an appetite among the electorate;
  • the winning candidate has a genuine mandate;
  • her name recognition will have been boosted;
  • there has been communication with the whole constituency.
  • On which basis, you’d conclude it’s a no-brainer: surely every constituency which can remotely afford to run an open primary should adopt the principle. Well, perhaps. But of course it’s not quite that simple. For a start, this contest’s very novelty will have piqued the public’s interest – what chance of a 25% turn-out the third, fourth, fifth time it’s done in Totnes by each of the main parties, let alone if it were rolled-out nationally?

    And almost as importantly, can it be afforded, even by the Tories? As Lib Dem blogger James Graham observed last week:

    It must be costing the Tories around a pound per constituent to hold this contest. Even if they had managed to bring it down to 50p, that is still about £35,000 to hold just this primary. For a national party that is chickenfeed, but to roll it out nationwide would cost at least £20 million. Even the well-funded Conservatives will struggle to raise that amount of money ON TOP OF the amount they need to raise for electioneering locally and nationally (not to mention the costs of each candidate in the primaries). … You certainly couldn’t fund every single party to run primaries in this way so what would your cut off point be, and how would you prevent it from entrenching the established parties at the expense of everyone else?

    But does this mean the Lib Dems should ignore the Tories’ Totnes experience, write it off as just another of those expensive gimmicks that’s all very well for party of Lord Ashcroft but completely impossible for the modest means of the Lib Dems? I don’t know, is the honest answer. We certainly couldn’t afford to run ‘open primaries’ in every constituency up and down the country simply because it’s a jolly good thing.

    But as Lib Dem blogger ‘Costigan Quist’ notes today, the Tories’ plan owed far less to ‘democratic renewal’ than it did to canny campaigning:

    Totnes is a marginal constituency where the Tories have just about managed to hold off the Lib Dem challenge in the last two general elections. The sitting Conservative MP, Anthony Steen, is standing down having been caught with his hand in the expenses till to the tune of nearly £90,000 of taxpayers’ money.

    That’s a major problem for the Tories. Totnes is the sort of seat they need to be holding if they’re to form a majority but the expenses scandal clearly gives the Lib Dems a nice juicy campaigning message. Something special is needed, and when money is no object, this may be it.

    It would of course be rash to reject the notion of ‘open primaries’ simply on the basis that we can’t afford them. What we instead have to do is weigh up their cost against other ways of spending the same money, and work out which we think will be of greatest campaigning benefit. If it’s true the Tories spent some £40,000 on this ‘open primary’, then we’re talking about the cost of two years’ wages of a full-time Lib Dem Organiser. If we could ask any of our Parliamentary candidates which of these two options they’d rather the party spent its money on, I can guess their answer.

    However, I wonder if there are some sets of circumstances in which organising an ‘open primary’ would be money well-spent: specifically I’m thinking of when the Lib Dems are defending the seat and the incumbent MP is retiring. We all know that many of our MPs build a considerable personal vote, and that it can be a struggle for the party to retain this (though recent experience, in Eastleigh, Richmond Park, Cheltenham – to name but three – has shown the party is less vulnerable to this effect now than it used to be). It strikes me that it is just these such occasions when ‘open primaries’ might be justified, as a means of raising the profile of the winner, increasing their chances of a successful defence of the seat.

    I’m aware that this post focuses on the canny campaigning nature of ‘open primaries’ rather than the high principle of ‘democractic renewal’. So, to correct my error, I’ll leave the last words to James Graham, who noted the very best, most cost-effective, way to bring in ‘open primaries’:

    What I can’t see, with the best will in the world, is how such a system [of 'open primaries'] can improve on having single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. STV works by effectively combining a primary with an election – you don’t just get to choose between parties but between candidates within parties on the same ballot paper (of course this depends on the parties themselves playing ball and providing the electorate with a choice, but there is some evidence in Scotland which suggests that the parties which did field a broader range of candidates did better). You don’t end up with a group of candidates who all argue for the same thing because the system recognises that the electorate is not an amorphous whole but a group of individuals with a diverse range of opinions. Instead of all elections being won by the lowest-common-denominator, minority views are allowed representation as well. And the enormous cost is saved, to be spent on other things or even not raised in the first place.

    Read more by or more about , , , or .
    This entry was posted in Op-eds.
    Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/15820 for Twitter and emails.

    31 Comments

    • Paul Griffiths 4th Aug '09 - 7:41pm

      “The system will get better, more efficent and less expensive as time goes on.”

      Surely the costs are mainly postage and printing. If anything, these will become more expensive as time goes on.

    • Paul Griffiths 4th Aug '09 - 8:07pm

      Another way of making primaries more affordable (for the parties) is to subsidise them. Direct taxpayer funding of political parties will always be prohibitively unpopular, but taxpayer contributions towards a more effective democratic process need not be. In the same vein, the current (uncontroversial?) subsidised delivery of general election communications could be extended to local elections.

    • Richard Huzzey 4th Aug '09 - 8:43pm

      Note they can also send target mail to the 25% of the electorate who have self-declared an interest in choosing the Conservative candidate, and are thus disproportionately likely to (a) vote and (b) be well-disposed to the Tory candidate in a General Election.

    • Richard Whelan 4th Aug '09 - 8:48pm

      One of the problems I can see with an ‘open primary’ for selecting parliamentary candidates is that it runs the risk that opposition supporters will vote for what is deamed a weaker candidate so that from their perspective they have an easier chance of beating them come the General Election.

      A ‘closed primary’ for Liberal Democrat supporters only maybe worth a try because at least they would have an interest in selecting the best candidate to either retain or gain the seat in question. But this would mean both finding and registering our supporters, like in the United States, to allow them to vote in the primary. I don’t know how logistical this exercise would be nor whether there are legal issues with regards registering our voters as Liberal Democrat supporters.

      A good idea in principle though.

    • This stunt cost £40K, thats £25Million for the whole country, for each of the 3 major parties plus more for the others. Lets call it a round £100Million. Anyone who thinks Totnes is the way to go ought to say where the money is going to come from.

    • Grammar Police 4th Aug '09 - 10:17pm

      I suppose the point is that those who voted will be disproportionately Tory voters and they will now have a stake in the process and be more motivated to vote, and maybe even to help.

      Steen got over 20,000 votes in the last election.

      (Open primaries were, of course, Daniel Hannan’s suggested method of reducing “safe seats” without needing to stoop to voting reform – but we shouldn’t let the Tories spin that lie, I want my choice of MPs, not my choice of Tory or Labour MPs!)

    • Find the money! – a primary system where voters have to choose a political party to select for – like in the US – would provide an incentive for parties and candidates to register voters, which in the short term would boost turnout and in the long term will boost political awareness generally. It’s also quite fun for political geeks like me!

      A tax payer funded ballot process would help with costs but any campaigning should be from candidate raised funds. Caucauses seem quite fun too maybe we could try those?

      Either way i don’t think money should be the issue – democracy is expensive and people should be willing to put their hand in their pockets.

    • So you get an opportunity to vote for one of three people selected by a party you are not going to support at a real election? All it does is shore up a rubbish political system with a bit more tokenism – which sadly seems to deceive people who equate democracy with putting a mark on a piece of paper on every conceivable occasion.

    • The problem with “open” primaries is that they can easily be manipulated by political opponents (and, based on Adrian Sanders’ blog and the Herald article I posted above, we’ve openly admitted doing it.) We’d all vote for the candidate we thought was the worst; and the other parties would do the same.

      Parties need to select a candidate who they believe reflects the views of the party accurately, but they also need to select someone who people are going to vote for. It means that a good candidate for one part of the country might not be in another – Ming Campbell is a perfect fit for North East Fife, but I’m not sure how well he might have gone down in Sheffield Hallam, however.

    • Simon Jerram 5th Aug '09 - 3:30pm

      If people want a say in who represents their favoured party in the next election, it’s usually fairly easy to sign up as a member.

    • Matthew Huntbach 6th Aug '09 - 9:29am

      Well, the Tories did at least whittle down their potential candidates to three, rather than use the US model in which anyone can stand but they have to put up their own money to campaign across the electorate so actually anyone can stand so long as they’re very rich or saying the sort of things which will encourage the very rich to pay for them. Primaries in the US seem to have closed down rather than opened up politics for the people – the political parties become just mechanisms in a system where the real political parties are the scratch organisations formed to fight primaries, which are by their nature undemocratic, personal tools of their leaders rather than mechanisms by which ordinary people can club together to compete against the power of wealth and celebrity.

    • Lets have a reality check. How would this work in a constituency where we have next to no members or organisation, and where someone has to be ‘directed’ to stand. And why should my say as a member be of no more importance than a so called supporter? We should be selling membership on the basis that it gives supporters the right to participate in elections for candidates, the leader, party president etc.

    • Just a legal question.

      Does the law now allow parties access to the full electoral register for an “open selection”?

    • Can’t see a problem with that as political parties can use the full register for their political purposes – and selecting a candidate is one of those.

    • Herbert Brown 7th Aug '09 - 3:52pm

      Why not go a step further, and have party policies as well as party candidates chosen by the whole electorate? If all parties did this, all parties would have the same policies and the same candidates, and a lot of unnecessary time and trouble could be saved.

      Mind you, I can foresee one fly in the ointment. If we did attain this idyllic state of affairs, no doubt some troublemakers would band together and try to influence the electorate’s choice one way or the other. And some other troublemakers would organise themselves to campaign for the opposite point of view. And in no time at all we’d be back to square one …

    • Surely, as the Liberal ‘Democrats’, this shouldn’t be an issue of prudence; are you not ideologically commited to this?

    • The winning Conservative candidate says she spent no money on the campaign and wasn’t very political.
      The limits on spending by candidates were very tight. This may be a good thing (no candidate can buy the primary) or a bad thing (the established candidate has a huge advantage and opponents are prevented form spending money to counter this) but it quite crucial to how the process opperates.

      It ought to be mentioned that this situation arose because of the expenses scandal and is in a seat the Conservatives can clearly expect to win. Had Sir Anthony been subject to the process 12 months ago, no doubt he would have won easily.

      I’d love to see the Conservatives spend £40,000 on an open primary is a seat where they polled less than 10% of the vote.

      It is really another way of avoiding electoral reform. As such it doesn’t really help politics. I’ve no interest in choosing the Conservative MP for any seat – I want an MP who is closer to my views.

    • Should we be doubting the ‘quality’ of the candidates chosen? Are these the best candidates?
      We need a few mavericks who can ‘walk the walk’ and fight the tories!
      Otherwise the Libdem Party will never be in power…ever.

    Post a Comment

    Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

    If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

    Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

    *
    *
    Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




    Recent Comments

    • User AvatarJohn Hann 28th Aug - 1:53pm
      Once again many thanks for the comments. My personal view is that the "protectionist" argument confuses the free market in goods and services which almost...
    • User AvatarCharlie 28th Aug - 1:45pm
      I would suggest that there many reasons why people support UKIP , many of which are cultural not just economic. The days when Labour and...
    • User AvatarJulian Tisi 28th Aug - 1:45pm
      Tory defectors is probably the best chance UKIP have of electing MPs. One of the many unfair aspects of our electoral system is that electors...
    • User Avatartpfkar 28th Aug - 1:44pm
      On the one hand I'm a great admirer of Carswell, he's thoughtful and makes me think even when I don't agree with him. He's also...
    • User AvatarPsi 28th Aug - 1:36pm
      Jackie Paper “Our media (local and national) seems to have moved away from the idea of a, ‘newspaper of record,’ that’s not helped. Certainly in...
    • User AvatarDavid Blake 28th Aug - 1:29pm
      Martin - if the Lib Dems don't fight it will be a sign of knowing that we will do badly.