http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/EDIT02/803090359/1090Your Voice
The day after the most momentous primary election in recent history, the Enquirer ran a headline that read, "Crossover voters spur shortage of ballots" (March 5). It seems that an unprecedented number of Democratic ballots were requested. Apparently in heavily Republican counties such as Clermont there was heavy voting in the Democratic primary.
Why was that? It doesn't stretch the imagination too much to think there were Republicans who voted for a Democratic candidate because they thought he/she would be easier to beat come November or because they couldn't stand the thought of one or the other occupying the White House.
What happened Election Day is the reason Ohio should have a closed primary system, and it should take more than a whim to change your party affiliation. The Democratic and Republican parties both have principles which are evident in their different platforms. People who strongly believe in either party's principles usually officially join that party - they choose to take a stand with that party. As such, when either the Democrats or Republicans are trying to decide who best represents their party as the nominee for the highest office in the land, they should have the privilege to do so without interference.
ADVERTISEMENT
One argument against a closed primary is that it doesn't allow independent voters a chance to participate in the primary process. Independent voters obviously don't align themselves with the principles of either party enough to be willing to join that party. Since independent voters obviously can vote in the general election I fail to see why they should be allowed to influence either party's primary process. They still have a voice. It's just not a voice within a party system of which they have chosen to opt out...
Raye Ann Sifri of Mack holds a doctorate in pharmacology from Ohio State University.