Stepping back from the current Idaho debate over party declaration, maybe we should reconsider the whole question of political parties and what they are. Ordinarily, most of us are happy with the concept that private organizations can have broad control over who to admit to its membership. But what about an organization that in effect holds the keys to elective office? From the standpoint of the unaffiliated (as we are), political parties can look like private organizations that have hijacked our election system. Certainly such constitutional framers as George Washington, who was appalled at the rise of “faction,” would likely see it that way.

Should we simply declare that political parties are not private at all – insinuated as they are in our governmental and political process – and declare them quasi-public organizations operating on special rules? In some ways, they already are. For all the discussion (periodically in Washington state and currently, hotly, in Idaho) about party members maintaining control of the nomination process, there is no control at – and none is proposed – for controlling who is allowed to be a Republican or a Democrat. (Will the courts address that next?) Anyone can join either party, for any reason. And if you doubt that leads to some loose election results in places where party registration is part of the system, look to Oregon, a party registration state, and compare the party registration numbers with the often at-odds results on general election days.

The current row in Idaho stems from an 88-58 vote at a state Republican Party meeting a Burley in favor of “closing” the Republican primary – that is, allowing only voters who are registered as Republicans to vote in Republican primary elections. (That is how it works, for both major parties, in Oregon and a number of other states.) Doing that would require a change in state law, which despite Republican legislative control doesn’t seem likely; it also presumably would mean that Idahoans would register by party when they register to vote.

Rod Beck, the former state senator who pushed the idea, said that “ultimately, we’re going to have a stronger, more vibrant Republican party as a result.” You can see the point he’s making, that a more coherent group of people would be deciding on nominations, tightening the party’s focus. But the approach doesn’t seem to have done a whole lot of political good for, say, the floundering Oregon Republican Party.

Part of the issue here is the question of crossover voting – of Democrats and left-of-center independents voting in the Republican primary, presumably to support relatively moderate candidates. Some of that undoubtedly happens, but we’ve never been persuaded that it often or significantly works. It was thought, in some quarters (variously hopefully or apprehensively) to become a factor in last year’s 1st congressional district Republican primary, which was split deeply six ways and where a smallish number of votes really could matter. But crossover didn’t matter: The candidate it was supposed to help, Sheila Sorensen, finished third.

In his blast on the GOP action, posted on the New West site, Democratic state Senator Clint Stennett of Ketchum argued, “how many voters will feel forced to join a political party purely out of peer pressure? How many party activists will be forced to become ‘independents’ – or unaffiliated – because they believe their political choice will not be popular with people who have influence over them?”

The concern is understandable, especially in smaller communities where one party is dominant. But to the extent that happens, the point of party registration – having like-minded people organizing together – is undercut, the same way it is now. (In Oregon, the problem doesn’t seem particularly serious.)

Stennett’s more strongly-felt point may have been this one:

There’s also the very real problem that would occur when a minority of voters is allowed to select representation for a majority of voters, based solely on political affiliation.

How could that happen? Consider this: Say you live in a legislative district where three Republicans are competing against each other for the same senate seat. One candidate, a moderate, has held the office for many years. She is being challenged by a ultra-conservative Republican and a liberal Republican. There are no other challengers in the race.

Under this scenario – one which is not uncommon in Idaho—the winner of the Republican primary election in May will effectively have won the general election in November.

Yet according to the proposed change, only registered Republicans would be allowed to vote in the May election. Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, independents—all will be locked out. As a result, it’s quite possible that a minority of voters will be allowed to choose the legislative senate representation for the entire district. That’s just wrong.

What he’s describing is, of course, reflective of what actually happens across large stretches of Idaho – it accounts for how many Idaho legislators get into office.

The problem with this analysis was neatly isolated by blogger Adam Graham, who posted a rebuttal on New West: “I’ve followed politics for many years, but I must confess that this is the first time I’ve seen a political leader argue that his own ineptitude in candidate recruitment should be the basis for government policy. That Senator Stennett can’t get enough Senators elected to fill a Toyota Sequoia should not mean that the Republican nominee should be a Democrat-lite.”

The point, albeit made in a partisan way, is legitimate. For one thing, there’s no obligation of the Republican Party to nominate someone “acceptable” to non-Republicans, other than (if they feel the need) as a matter of political strategy. Besides that, if Republicans nominate a candidate who represents the views of only a minority of the voters, then logically that should open an opportunity for Democrats (or an independent) to seize the seat. If it doesn’t, then maybe a closer re-look at the voter population, or the candidates in question, is in order.

Over the years, we’ve discussed the idea of party registration in Idaho with a number of elected officials. Among those who were Republicans, the view was overwhelming: Registration would be bad Republican strategy, for two central reasons. One is that many independents in Idaho have naturally gravitated toward Republicans; force them to formalize that, and who knows what they might do? The second point is equally simple: Republicans have fared spectacularly well under the current system, so why should they change it?

Those are two of the reasons we’re not holding any breath waiting for the very Republican Idaho Legislature to follow the lead of the Idaho Republican Party.