With campaigns getting into full swing and primary elections in Arkansas fast approaching, I as an American taxpayer have a complaint. I most certainly understand and accept the taxpayer burden of paying the cost of general elections, but why should taxpayers foot the bill for party primaries?
Think about it, we the taxpayers pay the costs of primary elections which serve to help political parties choose the candidates they put forward in the general elections. I bet I know whose idea that was!
I ask why because political parties are nowhere endorsed in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, some of our founding fathers warned against them. So why is it that the taxpayers got stuck with the responsibility and the bill of conducting primaries? In themselves, they elect no one to public office; that is done in the general election, even if a candidate who wins a primary is elected, along with all the others who run unopposed -- no, I don't like that manner of conducting general elections either and think all candidates should be listed on the ballot with a place to write in an opponent when no one else runs.
Some years ago, while I still lived in northwestern Kansas, I chose to unaffiliate myself with the party I had at one time supported because of the party's waffling on its moral platform. When I tried to affiliate with a third party, the state would not acknowledge that affiliation but counted me as simply "unaffiliated." That, however, did not relieve me of the tax burden of paying for primary elections to help the two major parties select their candidates at their respective conventions even though I couldn't vote in the party primaries.
In Arkansas, with open primaries, I can choose to vote in a party's primary -- either to select the lesser of evils or to sabotage a party with nothing good to offer by voting for someone I am convinced will lose in the general election -- but if my party has no candidates on the primary ballot and I choose not to vote in another party's primary, I still have to pay taxes to pay for the primaries.
I lived in Iowa once -- only for two years -- and it did one thing that makes more sense to me than the states of Kansas and Arkansas. The state didn't pay for primary elections. Instead of taxpayer-funded primaries, political parties held caucuses to help choose their respective candidates. I realize that many don't like caucuses because it takes a whole evening rather than a few minutes to cast a vote, but at least I didn't have to pay to help a political party I couldn't support choose its candidate and I could give my support to the party of my choice, even if it wasn't one of the big two that got us into this mess.
Am I supporting caucuses? Not necessarily, but it is a far better system than primaries. I am complaining about our government spending taxpayer dollars to aid political parties in choosing their candidates rather than following the constitution our leaders are sworn to uphold.
If parties wish to put forward candidates for office, let the parties foot the bill to choose their candidates. And, if someone wishes to run for an office, why not put the name on the ballot and let the voters choose the best candidate for the job?
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be reached by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 05/09/2018