New Hampshire needs more diversity. No, not diversity of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, disability, mental illness, cognitive ability, religion, or veteran status. We need a greater diversity of views among the people we elect to rule over us.
The only way to obtain a seat in any of the three elected bodies, or the governorship, that constitute our state government is by running for election as a Democrat or Republican and winning at the polls. Periodically, third parties engage in performance art spectacles that result in their appearance on the ballot, but this never results in their accession to any governance roles.
This duopoly is not unusual in present-day America. During the nineteenth century, there were times when candidates from more than two parties vied for power, but that was long ago and far, far away. What makes this peculiar in New Hampshire is that a plurality of voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans; they are undeclared. These undeclared voters are spared second-class citizen status by allowing them to identify as members of either party for the length of time it takes to cast a vote in the primary. This flexibility has led to various close-quarter combat voting strategies among undeclared voters, such as those who voted for RFK Jr. or Nikki Hailey, to monkey-wrench the electoral process of the party they oppose.
This state of affairs is suboptimal for several reasons.
Both political parties are private organizations. They are not part of the government. Those who, like myself, are active party members; I am the vice chair of the Sullivan County GOP committee, are subject to having our political efforts overturned by people who have no stake in the organization’s success.
With only two views applied to governance decisions, the government is reduced to hyper-polarized team sports. With the advent of live coverage of committee meetings on YouTube, they resemble an England versus West Indies cricket match. Only a breathless announcer is missing.
The focus on party politics brings baggage from national political organizations, such as the protagonists’ personalities in the US House of Representatives and Senate. When contemplating the issues dealt with in Concord, there is no need to consider the ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preferences, or sartorial preferences of elected officials from elsewhere in America.
We can do better than this by getting the government out of party politics. I propose a radical restructuring of ballot access laws.
● The only primary election held is the one specified by RSA 653:9, the primary that selects the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
● No one has automatic ballot access.
● All candidates, including currently serving elected office holders, must provide the secretary of state with a sufficient number of verified signatures of registered voters to appear on the ballot.
● Political parties, being private organizations, are free to choose candidates to endorse using whatever means they choose.
● No taxpayer money is expended to support the party’s decision to endorse a candidate. Neither the attorney general nor the secretary of state will have any involvement.
The proposed system has several advantages:
Regularly obtaining registered voters’ signatures incentivizes elected officials to engage directly with voters rather than merely making themselves available to the electorate via email and grandstanding on YouTube.
By de-emphasizing the connection between local politicians and the national political scene, our local politicians can focus on our problems rather than those emanating from the DC circus.
Voters’ opinions will be more likely to be formed by the actions of legislators addressing problems within their purview rather than party affiliation.
Of course, such a change runs counter to the individual interests of those currently serving and the interests of the bureaucracies to which they belong and, hence, is unlikely to be adopted.
