The right to vote does not legitimize manipulation

If you were Los Angeles Lakers Coach Phil Jackson, would you allow New Jersey Nets Coach Byron Scott to choose your starting lineup? Hardy likely. Is it fair for a member of the opposing team to decide the opponent? No.

Likewise, in terms of government, is it fair for registered Republicans or Democrats to switch parties in order to vote in the other's primary -- potentially offsetting the votes of long-term party members? I would argue no.

For many years, party members chose the nominee for election in a convention format, marked by smoke-filled rooms and less individual voter say. In the 20th century, voters were given broader choice through the introduction of party primaries. The core idea was that the primaries would produce the party's strongest candidate distinguishing the primary's winner as the candidate most likely to be elected for the government position. Registered party members can more effectively produce the strongest candidate.

However, a more recent twist on the primary model, one which has become more apparent since the 1992 election, is the phenomenon of so-called jumper voters. Jumper voters, oftentimes longstanding partisan members, change their party affiliation prior to the other primary. Once Republicans have been registered as Democrats, or vice-versa, they are permitted to vote in the primary for the other party. Once the primary is over, the jumper voters send in the necessary forms to register again with their true allegiance.

In several states during the 2000 Presidential election, registered Republicans voted in Democratic primaries for Bill Bradley. Likewise, many registered Democrats voted in Republican primaries for John McCain.

Certainly, I am not chastising the efforts of independent voters, many of whom worked actively for Bradley and/or McCain. Those voters contributed funds to their campaigns and, had they been nominated, would have cast their November votes for them. Also, I am not referring to weakly partisan voters, who may belong to a state party with an ideology closer to that of the "other" national party. Rather, by jumpers I mean strongly partisan voters who change affiliation in an attempt to nominate a less electable candidate in the other party.

Jumper voters turn out more widely in later primaries, once their own party's desired nominee is likely or even certain. The nominee chosen by the jumper proves, in theory, to be a weaker opposition to their own candidate. In the end, however, jumper voters did not swing the balance enough to make a significant difference.

However, in the recent Pennsylvania gubernatorial Democratic primary, as many as 90,000 Republicans jumped parties to choose former Mayor Edward Rendell over favored Robert Casey, Jr. Rendell was widely advocated by certain non-party interest groups -- on the matter of abortion for instance. These groups reportedly targeted registered Republicans and were successful in convincing many to switch parties for the primary. The end result is a candidate whose beliefs weigh in more favorably with non-party interest groups.

Since the primary, characteristic of non-presidential primaries, found itself with a low voter-turnout, it is hard to calculate the result regarding the Democratic Party as a whole. However, jumpers impacted this gubernatorial race quite significantly more than jumpers' effects in the 2000 Presidential election.

Assuming that George W. Bush will feel little or no opposition in the upcoming 2004 Presidential election, multitudes of longtime Republicans may practice "jumping" and switch parties before the 2004 primaries. Although the 2000 partisan efforts to put Bill Bradley up against George Bush were unsuccessful, a larger jumper turnout could conceivably produce a far weaker opposition.

The effect of one jumper voter's vote is only to cancel out one of the votes of true party members. It is giving one person the ability to choose the other team, as well as his own.

Phil Jackson should not have to start a substitute player over Shaquille O'Neal just because his opponent Byron Scott would rather face Lakers' sub Samaki Walker instead of O'Neal. Similarly, I believe that something must be done in order to allow true party members to put their best possible candidate forward.

I disagree with the conventional press' image of the well-informed voter using such practices in the interests of good government. They advocate expanding upon the abilities of voters so that anyone can vote in a primary. It is not fair, and it goes against the spirit of democracy. Under laws passed after the Watergate scandal, professional party figures may not be involved in the races of opponents. Partisan voters who jump are deliberately hurting their opposition, or at best, allowing for a candidate whose views more closely mirror their own. The ability of jumpers to change the playing field should not be further expanded, but limited; otherwise it not inconceivable to see a return to the smoke-filled rooms that marked pre-primary elections.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.