Though I don’t know him personally, I am predisposed to like Todd Thomas, possibly because like him I was born and grew up in Preston, but more likely because his op-ed columns, often grounded in his life experience, generally strike me as being level headed and fair-minded.

In his ISJ column from a week ago (“Who Chooses Your Starting Pitcher”), Thomas argued in favor of closed Republican Primary elections in Idaho by relying on a baseball analogy: the coaches of a team (he says), and only they, should determine which pitcher gets the starting nod; you’re not going to allow your opponents to influence who you put on the mound. Thus, in this comparison, only a relatively few party members should get to choose the eventual candidates that all of us will vote on in November. (Traditionally, only about 15% - 20% of party members vote in primaries. Why is this figure so abysmally low?)

Although figurative analogies do not prove anything, they are often effective in illustrating an idea. But because they can be superficially apt and thus engaging, we may miss the fact that the points of comparison they invite us to consider may not be completely aligned. We have to be careful that they don’t cause us to miss the crux of the issue.

I want to look a little more carefully into the implication of this “who picks the starting pitcher” analogy because I think it misses what is really important in the democratic (small d} electoral process.

Aside from entertainment, sports competitions are unequivocally partisan—and winning at the expense of the competitor is the principal goal. You do whatever you can within the rules to get that “W”. You want to fill up your

trophy case with as much hardware as you can acquire, year by year; you’re not concerned with what happens after the game for the other guys; you’re not concerned if the neighboring school’s trophy case is entirely empty. That’s their problem.

Is that really the attitude and the end result you want from the electoral process in a democracy? No, not at all. What you do want is to involve the greatest achievable number of citizens in the decision-making about leaders, with the best range of options, particularly in the crucial initial stages. And what you do want is a process that does not culminate when the votes are counted in the general election—that’s just the beginning of the important part. Unlike in the typical sports contest, when the clock runs out when the winners exult and the losers go off and lick their wounds—and it is over, that’s when, in a democracy, the newly chosen leaders must acknowledge—and truly believe—that they will serve all the people, not just their partisans, not just the narrow ideology they passionately espouse. The real point of the process is ultimately the common good going forward.

Here’s an actual sports analogy that I think is a better fit. Some years ago a Peace Corps volunteer in a third-world country liked watching the local school boys playing soccer. They divided each day into teams and went at it. One lad was clearly the dominant player among them, and whichever team he was on always quickly gained a decisive lead. But as the noon recess was drawing to a close, the observer noticed that the losing side always began to catch up—and the outcome of each game was always a tied score.

The point is this: In that particular culture there was a value greater than short-term partisan winning. Those boys wanted an experience that recognized the value in the participation of and reward for all the players, not just the most dominant; they wanted an outcome--following the game—that focused on the best possible outcome for all of them as they returned to the school room.

Okay, In an ideal world maybe, you’ll say. But after all, isn’t something approaching that result what the electoral process in a democracy should strive for—the widest possible participation and the greatest ensuing good for the greatest number?

The question is, do close Republican primaries lead to these desirable outcomes? I think the answer in Idaho over the past few years is clearly no. (Many moderate Republicans in our state do in fact agree with me.) Effectually, such restriction dampens the influence of moderate, independent-minded parts of the electorate. Without question, by narrowing significantly the numbers of participants in the crucially important, early nominating process, closed primaries have given us an ultra-conservative Idaho Republican Party dominated by ideological extremists determined to make Idaho even more politically imbalanced than it already is. (See Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon’s regular columns in this newspaper.)

Who gets to run for office, with a realistic chance of election, should not be simply a determination of purist party machinations. If we want to see candidate names on the ballot in November that really are the best we can get, we should make the nominating process as open and flexible as we possibly can.

Personally, I would like to see ranked choice voting (RCV) implemented in Idaho. It would allow the advance of the most broadly supported candidates; I think that would be conducive to more balanced, less extreme political outcomes benefitting Idaho citizens and Idaho’s reputation. But at the very least we should strongly encourage that contingent of moderate, old-school Idaho Republicans who are in favor of opening their party’s primary elections.