Goodbye Jungle; Hello Closed Primaries

   

For far too long, our unique Jungle Primary system led to fractured elections, diluted outcomes, and, in many cases, unintended winners. Voters became frustrated with politics as usual. We had to rethink how we elect our leaders, starting with implementing closed primaries.

The Old System

In the old system, all candidates, regardless of party, ran on the same ballot in a “Jungle Primary.” If no one secured a majority, the top two vote-getters moved to a runoff. At first glance, this might seem democratic and inclusive. But in reality, it created a dangerous opportunity for manufactured vote-splitting that left many voters feeling unheard.

Here’s what often happens: multiple candidates from the same party jump into the race, each with their own support base. Instead of uniting behind a strong, broadly supported contender, the vote becomes splintered. This creates an opening for a lesser-known or less-qualified candidate to slip through with a narrow margin. Sometimes they make it into the runoff with support from just a small fraction of the electorate. Ultimately, the voters don’t get a true representative of their values. They get whoever navigated the math the best.

Closed Primaries

Closed primaries solve this problem by restoring clarity and fairness. Under a closed primary system, each party holds its own election, allowing registered party members to choose their nominee without interference. This means that Republican voters pick their Republican candidate, and Democratic voters pick their Democratic candidate. It prevents opponents or outside forces from manipulating the outcome and ensures that each party’s nominee genuinely reflects its values. With closed primaries, the strongest candidate with the most support from their party moves forward.

Closed primaries with a runoff ensure that no candidate, incumbent or otherwise, can win without securing majority support. This system eliminates the possibility of an incumbent crowding the race with similar candidates to split the vote within their own party. If no one reaches 50 percent plus one, the top two candidates face each other in a runoff, guaranteeing a true majority winner. This approach reduces opportunities for manipulation through vote splitting or early announcements intended to deter challengers.

Critics argue that closed primaries limit participation. But the truth is, no one is excluded. Voters are simply encouraged to choose a party if they wish to participate in that party’s selection process. It’s a cleaner, more honest way to determine who should carry the banner into the general election.

Voters Deserve More

It’s also important to challenge another common myth: that the first person to enter a race should be considered the frontrunner. In reality, the best candidate is not always the first to announce. The best candidate earns voter trust through thoughtful leadership, clear vision, and a record of integrity. Early entry may provide a media boost or fundraising head start, but it does not entitle anyone to a nomination. Voters deserve more than a default candidate; they deserve a deliberate choice.

Elections Should Reflect the Will of the People

At the heart of this discussion is one principle: elections should reflect the will of the people, not the chaos of a crowded ballot. Closed primaries help ensure that the most capable, committed, and representative candidates rise to the top by empowering voters to make clear choices, not forced compromises.

Louisiana can do better. We can elevate the quality of our leadership and restore confidence in the electoral process. Embracing closed primaries is a step toward achieving exactly that.

###

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This