Hal Rothman on what might be a better way to hold elections

Sunday, Aug. 13, 2006 | 7:33 a.m.

With the primary on Tuesday, the political season is in full swing. Candidates grovel at any altar; they will profess any faith in exchange for votes. They attack opponents with similar views, distort each other's voting records and in some cases lineage, and it seems, will do or say anything to get elected.

Nevada is always an interesting place to follow politics. Where else could you find two people with bankruptcies running for state treasurer? Dead people have won elections in other states. This year a recently deceased candidate has more than a fighting chance to win the Republican primary for state treasurer. And, of course, we have the usual array of carpetbaggers, people with short histories in the state who typically have made money and seek to turn it into political office.

We have our share of eccentrics in state politics. The lieutenant governor's race has Lonnie Hammargren, a former holder of this office, who inexplicably wants it again. Eccentric is generous in his case. Bob Stupak is also running. He needs no introduction to Nevadans. His unusual behavior precedes him.

Don't forget the 2nd Congressional District, where the Club for Growth is trying to buy the seat for Sharron Angle. She seems unable to raise a dollar except for the club's contribution. Do they think we are so blind that outside money will triumph over experience?

The primary system forces candidates into a bind. In an age when belonging to a political party means less every year, the primary system enshrines party affiliation. Candidates have to appeal to the dwindling party faithful to attain the nomination and then, in the general election, have to tack to the center where most of Nevada's voters reside.

It is very hard to go from the extremes to the middle in just three months. This strategy requires vast expenditures of capital, mostly on TV commercials, with the sole purpose of recasting a candidate as someone who can appeal to the majority of Nevadans. Certainly their primary positions are a liability in the general election.

Could there be a better way? Could we dispense with the primary, acknowledging that party affiliation is a relic and the primaries encourage extreme positions?

There are other states that do this differently. Although I would not hold Louisiana as a model for anything political, its primary system makes more sense than ours.

In the Pelican State, all the candidates are grouped together in the primary. Party makes no difference; nor does any other distinction. If one candidate tops 50 percent of the vote, they win. Simple as that. No general election.

If no one tops 50 percent, the two top vote-getters proceed to a general election. They may be from the same party. They may be from no party at all. But they have proven themselves in an open primary and earned a shot at the run-off.

This makes a lot of sense for us. It would force candidates to be realistic about the offices they seek. This year we have been told that the lieutenant governor of Nevada is an integral player in the struggle over illegal immigration. As specious as that claim is, it has a certain appeal to the primary voters on one side of the aisle. In an open primary, this ridiculous perspective would be exposed as the fraud that it is.

An open primary would also diminish the power of political parties. Candidates would be forced to find the broad center earlier in the process. Such a system might yield more diverse candidates, people who did not have to earn their bona fides in a political party.

There are drawbacks to any system. We would be bombarded and the airwaves would be dripping with political messages even earlier than they do now. If someone won an open primary, we would not have to endure more political commercials.

Money might have an even greater role in politics than it does now. An open primary's biggest drawback is that it could convert fundraising into office. The candidates with the most money early in the game would have the best opportunities to get their message out.

But reviewing the primary system in Nevada is a valuable exercise. The state has changed dramatically, but the political system remains from an earlier Nevada. As Americans alter their political habits, the system needs to change with them. As with any change, we have to make sure it yields the ends that the public desires.