With an important election coming up in 2008, some members of the Democratic Party of Hawai'i are agitating for a change in how the state runs its primary elections.

They want a closed primary, which would allow only those who declare themselves Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary.

After all, they argue, the Democratic Party has the right to set forth its political platform, and to field Democratic candidates who support the platform. Why should independents — or heaven forbid, Republicans — be allowed to influence the Democratic ticket with their so-called crossover votes?

Here's why: A closed primary would lower even further our dismal voter turnout. It would potentially disenfranchise the large number of voters who may want to vote for specific Democratic candidates but don't want to join the party. It would stifle those candidates who may disagree with some of the party's more radical positions, such as impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It would, in other words, be less democratic.

The current open-primary system allows voters to choose either party's ballot at the polling booth without being a declared member of that party. The system was adopted by voters after the Constitutional Convention in 1978 after a decade in which the system was closed and the Democratic Party was the dominant political force in Hawai'i.

So dominant, in fact, that Hawai'i was essentially a one-party state, and if you weren't a declared member of the party, your vote counted for little.

In 1978, more than 5,300 Republicans — including a former GOP state chairman — switched parties just so their primary-election votes would count for something. It's a reasonable expectation in a democratic society.

Supporters of a closed primary argue that crossover voting could result in mischief, with bloc voting for weaker Democratic candidates who would be more easily challenged in the general election.

Aside from the most obvious solution — field stronger candidates — there doesn't appear to be any solid evidence that this is a serious problem. So why change the system?

Because, proponents argue, it violates the constitutional rights of the party to free association under the First Amendment. Maybe. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 against the state of California's "blanket" primary system suggested as much.

But the Democratic Party can freely choose to associate with all voters, not just those who declare for the party, and allow them to participate.

To not do so would be especially mean-spirited, given that most voters in Hawai'i still identify with the Democratic Party anyway.

Consider these numbers: In the 2006 primary election, there were more than 655,000 registered voters. Of those, about 238,000 voted Democratic. In the same election, 32,698 Republican ballots were cast.

If you think that's a lousy turnout, you're right.

But now consider this number: There are only about 20,000 registered members of the Hawai'i Democratic Party today.

Should they be the only ones allowed to vote in a Democratic primary? If so, it would make the 2006 primary look like an election-day stampede.

The Democratic Party of Hawai'i's official position supports a closed primary and directs the party chairman to file suit to make it happen.

That's the wrong approach. Take a position that supports the voters of Hawai'i — all of them.

Make a difference. Donate to The Advertiser Christmas Fund.