Food for thought on Iowa primary winners

What if Iowa primaries were run like those in California, Louisiana, Washington state or Alaska?

I have taken on a new endeavor over the last three election cycles: poll worker. It is a 14-hour day.

It is enjoyable work. I get to see democracy in action, helping people cast a vote for the direction they want to see for their town, county, state and nation. You actually get a sense of people controlling their government on these gigs.

This is the third year I have done this after spending five decades waiting for results late into the night to compile a news report.

The most gratifying thing about doing this is watching Republicans and Democrats band together for the sole purpose of helping people vote. Partisanship goes out the door here. For transparency, I am registered as no party.

I was not planning to write about being a poll worker because I am doing it to satisfy a public service urge rather than pursue a story. But a question came up a few times during the Tuesday, June 2, primary, when people had to pick one of two available ballots — either Republican or Democratic.

“Why do I have to pick one?” one person asked.

“I want to vote in both,” another said.

What if people could vote in both primaries? Sure, the system could be open to tomfoolery, but maybe people would vote for the best candidates in both parties.

Four states — Washington, California and Louisiana — have primaries such as nonpartisan blanket or jungle primaries, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Alaska uses a different system, advancing the top four primary vote-getters.

Such a system can be a Petri dish for mischief. The nature of today’s politics is that Republicans would pick the Democrat they believe would be easiest to beat. Democrats would do likewise on the Republican side.

Hope, though, could exist among no-party voters. The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office showed the state had 588,009 registered no-party voters going into Tuesday’s election. It had 694,349 registered Republicans and 500,432 registered Democrats.

No-party voters, as always, are the prized target audience for both parties. They ought to have a say in their choices. Sure, they can choose to vote in one party’s primary if they want, but perhaps they could be the great mediators who help give us the best candidates in each party instead of candidates simply handed to them.

That is their role in the general election, so why not earlier in the process? The answer in Iowa is that such a proposal would be dead on arrival.

Democrats will hate the idea because of how red-leaning Iowa has been in recent years, potentially resulting in two Republicans advancing to the general election. Republicans will hate the idea because it would dilute their power. Think about a truly independent candidate who wants to shake up the status quo with populist appeal.

It is just an idea. Comments on it would be an interesting start to a conversation. Or the end of the conversation if people hate the idea.

But maybe — just maybe — voters could behave more like the poll workers I see from the two major political parties: trying to create a better society and better government, working across the aisle and making sure every voice is heard.

---

I am a proud member of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. Check out some of the collaborative’s most recent stories from its roster of Iowa’s finest writers in this week’s summary.

I do not vote in Iowa’s primary elections. I am a no-party registrant.

---