Abdul-Hakim Shabazz: Here’s some political food for thought

Yes, I know we just wrapped up a municipal election in Indiana, but it’s never too early to talk about 2024.

Just ask the candidates for president, governor and the U.S. Senate.

Now, while most of them would want to discuss their policies and platforms, I come to you today, ladies and gentlemen, to discuss reforms for Indiana’s electoral system.

And trust me, these ideas, while probably somewhat controversial, should make for interesting food for thought.

First, either change Indiana’s closed primary system to an open one or eliminate it altogether. I have maintained this position for years: Why should taxpayers have to foot the bills for private political functions? Why should Democrats in Johnson County pay for how Republicans pick their candidates, and why should Republicans in Monroe County have to do the same for Democrats? I’ve never understood that. Political parties should have to pay for their own closed functions.

That is, unless the primary is open, and Republicans, Democrats, independents and even my libertarian friends can participate. The way this would work is simple: Voters go to their polling place, ask for a primary ballot and vote. They don’t choose a party ballot, because all the candidates are on one ballot. I’m cool if there’s a provision for party affiliation for record-keeping.

Which now comes to the second part. With an open primary, you can get to a general election in a couple of ways. The top two vote-getters face off in the general election. Or the individual who receives more than 60% of the vote wins the open primary.

However, folks, if you really want to have some fun and turn Indiana’s election system on its ear, throw in some ranked-choice voting. RCV allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. The candidates are ranked by how many are running for that office. After the first round, the lowest vote-getter is dropped off. Then, the second-choice votes for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half the vote.

Think about the benefits of RCV: more voter participation and saving time and money. I think this will also lead to less political polarization. Here’s why:

Currently, the way legislative maps are drawn, sometimes the only way to win a primary is to run further to the right or to the left of where most of the district is to get your base to come out. And once in office, elected officials have to worry about primary challengers.

RCV benefits both the elected official and the voters because voters have more choices, and their votes aren’t being thrown away because there is no longer a small percentage of them who come out in primaries and make the decisions. The elected official doesn’t have to worry about far-left/far-right candidates making life more difficult than need be and can run toward the center.

RCV is fundamentally the same approach used at caucuses and state conventions. If several candidates are on the ballot, the caucus and convention delegates keep going until someone gets 50%.

And speaking of conventions, does anyone else see it as odd that the gubernatorial candidate is picked in a primary, but the lieutenant governor is chosen at a convention by delegates? With the likelihood of a contested lieutenant governor’s race next year, someone might want to look at that.

It’s just a little political food for thought. Bon appetit.•

__________

Shabazz is an attorney, radio talk show host and political commentator, college professor and stand-up comedian. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.

Click here for more Forefront columns.