We have just finished a primary election in Illinois, and yes, I voted, but only on a non-partisan referendum issue.
For decades, I have questioned why primary voters are made to make a public declaration of party preference, when other states have found alternatives to this intrusive requirement. Twenty years ago, while a Wisconsin resident, I was able to vote within a single party ballot without revealing that choice.
Opponents to an open primary often insist that too much "mischief" could occur, such as voting for the weakest candidate in the opposing party to give your own candidate a better chance in the general election. While this is possible, I'd like to suggest an alternative, based on events here in Illinois.
Our incumbent Republican governor, a moderate, was challenged from the right by someone who has displayed open hostility to immigrants, public sector unions, and the LGBT community. I would have gladly voted against such a candidate in the primary, if only to help ensure that a more centrist individual would be the party's choice in the general election.
In addition, in areas where a single party dominates, many local races are actually determined in the primary, with the opposing party frequently not fielding a candidate at all.
Let's do it, Illinois. And I promise I'll be as attentive to primary races as I am to the general election.
I'm Jim Kline, and that is my perspective.
