Remember when the backers of the “open primary” measure were in the news claiming only the most extreme reaches of the political party would oppose their measure?
State Senator and South Dakota Republican Party Chairman John Wiik is in SouthDakotaSearchlight.com today declaring the state GOP’s opposition to the Jungle Primary measure:
Wiik hopes the measure doesn’t make it onto the ballot at all, and would like to see it defeated handily if it does.
“We are 110% opposed to the idea,” Wiik said. “It is our job in the Republican Party to put out the best candidates and decide who’s going to represent us on the general election ballot.”
and..
“I don’t think downtown Sioux Falls should be deciding who we should have on our general election ballot,” Wiik said. “It’s an old adage of mine: Pick a side and stick with it. If you run in the middle of the road, you’re bound to get run over.”
With Wiik representing the entire Republican party, I think the backers of the radical measure to shut out a lot of people from the November election should get the message that they represent the radical fringe, and not the rest of the SDGOP.
It’s an easy straw man, but I don’t get the “downtown Sioux Falls” line?
it’s meant to highlight the east river / west river population disparity, with an implied weight of undue influence the population blob of sioux falls can wield if the process is rejiggered to give the blob more weight. or so it seems.
If the GOP’s job is to put out the best candidates and Koskan and May are what they can find, clearly they suck at it.
I like Representative John Wick’s adage. It reminds me of Mr. Miyagi’s famous line: “Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, *squish*, just like grape.”
This jungle primary idea is just plain awful.
Glad to see GOP Chair Wiik can stand up for the institutional interests of the party but disappointed in the shot at Sioux Falls. A statewide leader should look to unite around the beliefs of the party and work on the formation of quality candidates statewide. Sioux Falls and Minnehaha County are a pretty big part of that project.
I can also appreciate the invocation of “getting run over in the middle of the road”, but I think there lies a similar danger in being on the far right fringe of the road that leaves yourself open to a hostile takeover into the ditch by a fringe group of clowns.
However, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it well in her SOTU response that in our present crisis, the battle is less of “right vs. left” and more of “normal vs. crazy”. I’d hope Chair Wiik will align himself with efforts to recruit “normal” candidates that can represent all areas of our state and take the responsibility of governing seriously.
The Party has had the misfortune of having some misguided and even clearly criminal nominees on its’ side of the ballot. I’m not sure how this happens, though it appears that in certain districts our rank and file is easily misguided, but there is surely a need for more open competition for elected office. This measure, an open primary, seems a radical solution, but the fact remains, we need a solution to the present chaos.
“The invisible power behind this website and even who authored this opinion want you to know that if we go to a system that is open to the public, then people who are scary and we must paint as cartoon villains will be your only choices – even thought they will be the people that the public wants – do you truth THE PUBLIC?!
Who writes this shit? Who READS it?
“do you truth THE PUBLIC?!”
Who writes comments like this?
This measure allows a democrat to list himself as a republican, or as a member of any other party. Its cleverly worded so that you do not notice that fact, unless you read it carefully, and literally.
I will vote no. I like to know who the candidate really is. Not who he wants us to think he is.
Sneaky,
If a person misrepresents their party different than party registration, it will be an election issues that would end up resulting in defeat. That said, even today a person can register for whatever party they want for what ever reason and you still have to do the work “to know who the candidate really is” anyway. This Constitutional Amendment doesn’t change that.
However, I do think this language (in the Constitution and never adjusted in the future via the Legislative process) is problematic: “Both the primary and general election ballots must state that a candidate’s indicated political party designation does not constitute or imply an endorsement of the candidate by the political party designated.”
If one or both of the parties wanted to have an “endorsement” convention like they do in Minnesota* to give information to the voters, why should it be Constitutionally prohibited forever for the ballot to be so dishonest as to state there is no endorsement when there is an endorsement. Especially under open primaries, I can see Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Peace parties, etc. all wanting to have a process to indicate endorsements to protect against people trying to identify with a particular party brand to deceive voters.
They say their only objective is to allow Independents (who today are more than registered Democrats) to have a say in who is on General Election ballots but they have this other stuff in it. With it potentially part of our Constitution, it is imperative we are more critical and diligent to assume they have intentions or consequences they are hiding from us.
* In Minnesota, for instance, any Republican can run in a primary. However, both for statewide and local elections, the state party (for statewide races) or local party (for local races) can endorse a particular candidate, an endorsement voters can then consider one way or another.
Sneaky,
Another reason to think the supporters have a secret agenda is the past paragraph: “If any provision of this section or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity will not affect any other provision or application of the section that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.”
The drafters of this are smart people. Are they tricking us into supporting this for multiple reasons to get it to pass knowing parts will be declared unconstitutional where their secret agenda is forever in the Constitution but the voters policy intentions are not?
Put the last two posts together and it looks like there is more than just simply wanting open primaries.
A South Dakota majority should choose our elected officials. Not the hardcore left or the crazy right. We have been getting more radical candidates (both parties) from which to choose. I support ranked choice voting.
Now, how do we get better options for President? It’s Groundhog Day.
Right. Today, because Republicans usually win in the general election, our legislative candidates are being “elected” by the crazy-leaning minority who actually take the time and effort to vote in the otherwise-pointless primary. By as few as 8% of the voting populace. “majority”? Hilarious!
Mr. Tronson: What do you mean “invisible power behind this website”” I think Pat Powers is forthcoming and holds himself accountable and is far from invisible. You are entitled to your opinions. So am I.
I agree with Terry.
Pat’s a good man. I’ve read his posts for many years now. He seeks the truth and gives an honest opinion. I don’t have to always agree with him to know that’s true.
We need more people like him in politics.
I totally agree with Elk and Terry. Pat does a great job giving us the scoop without sensationlizing it. Let us read, make our own judgements etc. You are known, in your own district, for some crazy ideas. Nuff said
nice story i guess. I wondered where the janklowcrats and daschublicans had gotten off to. here they are.