Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a primary?
June 2, 2008 12:54 PM
Subscribe
Is it common practice to have a slate of official party endorsed candiates in a primary election?
My state (NJ) has its primary election tomorrow. I noticed on my ballot that there is a slate of candidates that have been endorsed by the offical party committee for my local area, and then there are other candidates that haven't been endorsed by the offical Party Powers-that be who are also running. Is this common practice that I've just never noticed before, or something very peculiar to the local branch of my political party? To explain further, the first column says something to the effect of, "regular party", with a slate of candidates under it. The next column says "candidate for change", etc. The label of "regular party" is where you would normally see party affiliation "democratic", "republican", etc., in a general election.
Having a slate of official party-endorsed candidates for a party primary election seems to defeat the purpose of having a direct primary election in the first place. Is this just another weird NJ-ism that I'm noticing as a recent transplant to this lovely state, or is this a common practice? Also, to clarify, I'm not talking about endorsements for a slate by, say, the local LWV that you might receive in a mailing. But rather, an official endorsement by the local party chapter powerholders for it's own primary election candidate of choice.
posted by jujube to law & government (6 comments total)
posted by Thorzdad at 1:08 PM on June 2, 2008