A Recipe for Political Irresponsibility : Voting: Prop. 198’s open primary would bring back unaccountable candidates and meaningless parties.

Voters are likely to approve Proposition 198 in Tuesday’s California primary if they look at the measure superficially as a simple way to give themselves more choices. But Proposition 198 is opposed by both Republican and Democratic parties, and for good reason.

Proposition 198 would permit voting for candidates of any party at primary elections. For example, you would be able to vote for Bob Dole to be the Republican candidate for president, for a Democrat to be that party’s candidate for the state Senate and for the Libertarian of your choice in an Assembly race. You would have these choices regardless of your own party, or even if you are not registered with any party.

The Proposition 198 scheme is known as a “blanket” primary. It contrasts with the California’s existing “closed” primary system, in which Democrats choose among Democratic candidates, Republicans among Republicans and so on. Independents, having chosen not to affiliate with any party, don’t vote on party nominations.

Giving voters a freer choice may seem like a good idea, although it means sacrificing the collective right of party members to nominate the candidate that they believe best reflects the party’s goals. Supporters say Proposition 198 will result in the nomination of more moderate candidates. For wishy-washy centrists like me, this would be a potent argument if it were true.

But it’s not. Look at this year’s New Hampshire primary. According to exit polls, Sen. Dole received a plurality of votes cast by Republicans. Independent ballots gave Pat Buchanan his New Hampshire victory.

Relatively sophisticated voters tend to think of politics along a left-right ideological spectrum. Many voters do not. And despite obvious exceptions, independents tend to be the least informed and least sophisticated of voters. They may well be swayed by any candidate, left or right, with a superficially attractive message.

Furthermore, the primary ballot under Proposition 198 would be confusing and deceptive. All candidates for a given office would be listed together in random order. It would be natural for voters to assume that candidates of all parties were running against one another, rather than in separate, intraparty contests. The effect of all this on nominations will be quirky and unpredictable.

The most important effect of Proposition 198 would be to destroy the major incentive to affiliate with parties. But would it be a bad thing if only a minority of California voters--possibly a small minority--were registered party members?

At the turn of the century, parties in California and elsewhere were dominant. Progressive reforms were adopted to weaken the parties, but these reforms were so successful that the pendulum swung much too far in the opposite direction.

When voters regard elections purely as contests between individuals, with party labels irrelevant, elections lose their focus. Campaigns become far more expensive when little-known candidates must publicize themselves because they cannot count on their identification as Republicans or Democrats to win votes. Given the intense competition for voters’ attention, candidates rely on shrill messages, especially personal attacks on their opponents.

True, party affiliation does not compel an individual to support candidates of that party. But it reinforces a sense of identification with the party. Identification is also reinforced because our current system of closed primaries ensures that during the primaries, voters receive mail messages only from candidates of their own party.

Despite its superficial allure, Proposition 198 would weaken parties, diminish accountability and aggravate most of the problems that currently afflict our electoral system.