Why crossing over to vote for other party's 'weakest' candidate is cynical, destructive

We're working on a story on crossover voting in the Aug. 5 elections -- Republicans in the 9th District asking for a Democratic primary ballot to vote in the 9th Congressional District race between Steve Cohen and Willie Herenton and Democrats countywide who may be asking for Republican primary ballot in order to have a say in the GOP gubernatorial race.

Over at Speak To Power, local blogger extraordinaire Steve Steffens (aka the Left-Wing Cracker) flagged a report indicating that in Davidson County, signs are that Democrats there may well be voting in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Steffens floats two theories:

First, it could be that Democrats are crossing over to vote for whomever they believe is the weakest possible opponent for McWherter, which would mean a boost for Zach Wamp or Ron Ramsey. However, the second option is a scary one: it could be that they have determined that McWherter cannot win in November, and they are crossing over to vote for Bill Haslam, so as to prevent the more rabid aspects of the GOP from taking over the state.

Steffens says he hopes it is "the former," but I sent him a tweet yesterday disagreeing. You hear this line of thinking from a lot from partisans on either side of the ideological divide; call me naive or idealistic, but I think it's a dangerous path to go down. Elections are so often determined by macro, structural issues that rooting for the other side's weakest or least-qualified candidate for purely partisan reasons is cynical at best and destructive at worst.

This is not the NCAA Tournament we're talking about, where fans hope the No. 13 seed will upset the No. 4 seed so their favorite team has a weaker opponent. The fact of elections is that your party or your candidate just might lose -- maybe even for completely illogical, unfair, irrational reasons -- so it seems to me that in the best interest of a county or state or nation, we all should root for the two best candidates make it to the finals. In the 2008 presidential election primaries, Republicans often indulged in this game, running out to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama -- the notion of which would be the "weaker" candidate changed over time. And now you hear some Democrats saying the same thing about Sarah Palin -- that they hope and pray Republicans make her their 2012 nominee because she'll be easier to defeat.

Unlike basketball, the winner in a political contest can have an impact on all of our lives. I say it's in our best interest that parties nominate the best possible candidates -- not the candidate you think gives your party its best shot at winning. Because what happens if your candidate loses? Better that the other side has put forth a competent, well-meaning nominee.