Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Primaries in US elections

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Are US primary elections sound or should they be abandoned?

Background and context

Both major American political parties (Republican and Democrat) run a series of ‘primaries’ before the quadrennial (four-yearly) presidential election. In these primaries, votes are held within states amongst registered voters to decide who the candidate for the election proper shall be for the relevant party. Some state parties only allow registered voters of their own party to participate (‘closed primaries’); others also permit registered independent voters to take part.
Parties in some states, for example the Democrats in Wisconsin, hold ‘open primaries’ – allowing members of the other party to vote in their primary, too! The resulting vote is reflected in who the state’s delegates are mandated to support standing for the leadership at the party’s convention: some primaries allow their state representation to be split in proportion to the votes cast (mostly Democratic ones), others are ‘winner takes all’ and give all their delegates to the winning candidate (mostly Republican). Prospective presidential candidates need a majority of delegates at their party’s convention to become the party’s nominee. The result of primary elections does not in itself determine the voting of the total number of delegates, as there are a number of ‘unpledged delegates’ (or ‘superdelegates’), such as party executives, officeholders (governors, congressmen etc) who are entitled to a vote at the party conference but are not bound by the primary held in their state. One of the aims in the primary season, therefore, is to amass enough pledged votes so as to not need any unpledged votes to be certain of a majority, thus ruling out last minute surprises from the wildcard votes. This was not always the case. Once, the nominees were solely decided at the parties’ respective conventions. As recently as the competition for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 1960, the convention was crucial (there, in deciding the candidacy of John F. Kennedy with Lyndon Baines Johnson as his running mate). All votes in ‘primary season’ are not alike – indeed, some are not primaries, but ‘caucuses.’ This is true of the first vote in the calendar, the Iowa caucus. At caucuses, discussions take place on a very small scale – in town halls, schools etc – amongst groups of voters, before they decide whom to support, often after several stages of discussion and voting. There is a minimum percentage threshold over which a candidate must get before receiving delegates – in Iowa for example, it is 5%. Definitions: Open primary: Registered voters can cast a ballot in either party's presidential primary. Closed primary: Only those pre-registered with a given party can vote in that party's presidential primary. Modified closed primary: In California, only votes cast by registered party members count toward the official tally, but others can vote too. In Massachusetts, unenrolled voters can take part in a primary, but registered members of a party cannot vote in another party's primary. In Rhode Island, both enrolled and unaffiliated voters can participate in a party's presidential primary. Open caucus: Citizens can vote in either party's presidential caucus. Closed caucus: Only registered party voters can vote in the presidential caucus of their party.[1]

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Democracy: Are the primaries adequately democratic?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Primaries are largely the internal affairs of political parties Primaries are not intended to be a fully democratic process. Political parties have a right to free association protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Included in this, is the right to construct primaries how they want. There is not obligation that the primary elections be "fair". But, it is the party itself that has substantial authority to make the choice and to craft the rules of the primary that frame the choice. Therefore, primary elections don't have to be perfectly fair.
  • Primary elections need not be fully democratic The United States have developed an institutional tradition of undemocratic mechanisms designed to actually control political processes.These institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Electoral College , the President's veto power have been part of the American Government and have helped preserve democracy since the foundation of the United States.
  • A national primary would violate Party rights to association The problem with a national primary is that it would violate many of the interests and powers that are constitutionally and politically necessary to preserve. First, it would violate the state governments' powers in establishing the election process and state parties interests in working together with the state to craft this process. Second, it would violate the interests of the Parties to preserve their right to free association and to ensure that their nominee reflects the interests of their party.
  • Primaries help reveal candidates to the public. While some complain that the primaries are too long, these elections should be this long. These are not ordinary elections, but elections to select the most powerful man or woman on earth. It is worth taking the more time than most elections held around the world to scrutinize the candidates for this particular office. And, there are many important character traits that can only be revealed in such a lengthy grueling process. Endurance, fortitude, grace under fire are all necessary abilities in the face of such a massive campaign challenge, and they are all necessary abilities in the presidency itself. Therefore, the length of the process seems a greater asset than weakness in primary election system.
  • Iowa and New Hampshire help reveal the candidates to the nation It is beneficial that the candidates are all gathered in Iowa and New Hampshire for a number of weeks to compete against each other, give speeches, and to present themselves to the country. It is necessary that some states act as a stage for candidates to first show themselves to the nation. Why not Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which are small and so less likely to tip the scales to significantly in the beginning of the elections.
  • US primaries give needed power to state parties Both Democrat and Republican parties have national and state entities. State parties are to the national party organizations as states are to the federal government. State parties have somewhat of an independent interest that must be respected in the broader electoral process. Primaries achieve this, by empowering state parties to play a part in formulating the process by which delegates will be selected in the primaries. Given the importance of state power in the United States, it is necessary to keep state parties relevant in this way through the current primary system.
  • Parties don't have to treat all candidates equally in primaries In political Parties that have a First Amendment right to free association, there is not really an obligation to be "fair" to every candidate and offer something equivalent to "equal opportunity". The party has a right to define what candidate is good for their political agenda and what candidate is bad for their political agenda. Basically, political parties can say, "if a candidate doesn't like it, too bad, run for office with a different party."


[Add New]

No

  • Primaries are too undemocratic relative to general elections. The Primary elections are equally as important as the General election. For Democrats that hope to see a Democratic president, the Primaries are the elections that determine who that Democratic president might be. The same goes for Republicans. Yet, the general elections are a far more democratic process than the primaries, as the primaries give far more power to the Parties and delegates to determine the winner and nominee. Why is this? Primaries should be more democratic.
  • Iowa and New hampshire are unrepresentative of the US Iowa and New Hampshire are both very small states that represent less than 1% of the electorate of the United States. They also do not reflect the diversity of interests that run across the United States. And, yet, these states are given unparalleled influence on the outcome the the presidential elections.
  • Superdelegates are not bound to represent the electorate. In the past, "Super Delegates" have been a way for the Democratic party to secure a candidate at their convention. These elected officials make up a significant portion of the delegates and are not bound to vote for a particular candidate besides who they want to vote for them. This means that the electorate has no influence on who these "Super Delegates" vote for. In a close election, this can mean a small number of people with no concrete ties to the electorate, will decide the Democratic Candidate for the General Election.
  • The primary system pushes elections back in the calendar This is a phenomenon known as by some as "front loading", in which different states desire to be earlier in the primary process to have a greater impact, thus causing a leap frogging effect backward in the calendar year. This makes the process much longer, more drawn out, more expensive, and sometimes even turns citizens off to the process.
  • Complicated US primaries lead to misleading vote counts News media often reports the popular vote in primaries simply because it is easier to explain. But, this does not always reflect the reality of how delegates are appointed. The primaries, therefore, can create some level of public confusion.
  • Primary elections distribute power unequally among voters Instead of giving states delegates based on population, electoral college, or strength of the party in that state, the parties have a formula involving several other factors. This formula does not give states with close to the same population the same amount of impact on the primary season.
  • The complicated primary system creates confusion and turns voters off Every state has a different primary system. Some have primary elections, some have caucuses, and some have both. These and other variations make it difficult for ordinary voters to follow the system, understand how they should engage as voters, and subsequently has the potential to turn them off to voting all together, which is bad for democracy.
  • Complicated primary elections create confusion abroad The US presidential elections are a globally important phenomena, but foreigners struggle to follow the process. This creates unfortunate impressions abroad about the system the elects the most powerful person in the world; a person that will affect foreigners.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

State interests: Are state interests upheld in the primary election process?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Primaries create pride in unique local systems While the primary system is complicated, this complication also produces pride within states and at precinct levels in the uniqueness of their particular process. This creates in voters a sense of identity with their state and Party and the process that they jointly develop. This is natural, since the United States is a government based on power-sharing between the federal and state governments. State governments benefit from the sense of pride and belonging that primaries foster. In short, the complicated primary system keeps states relevant and preserves their constitutional power.
  • US primaries give needed power to state parties Both Democrat and Republican parties have national and state entities. State parties are to the national party organizations as states are to the federal government. State parties have somewhat of an independent interest that must be respected in the broader electoral process. Primaries achieve this, by empowering state parties to play a part in formulating the process by which delegates will be selected in the primaries. Given the importance of state power in the United States, it is necessary to keep state parties relevant in this way through the current primary system.


[Add New]

No

  • Primary election delegates are not distributed fairly between states National party organizations do not assign delegates on the basis of population, but through a convoluted mix of political considerations. This means that two states with the same size populations may be given very different numbers of delegates. This means that the votes of citizens in different states count differently and that states generally are valued unequally.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Party strength: Do primaries help strengthen the political parties?

[Add New]

Yes

  • US primary elections help strengthen political parties. The interests of state party organizations, such as the Tennessee Democratic Party, are important to consider in addition to the interests of the umbrella party organization (Democratic Party, Republican Party). And, these two organizational layers must work together cohesively to function most effectively. The primaries offer an opportunity for cohesion to be created, as it become necessary for state and national party organizations to coordinate their efforts and election processes and to reconcile their agendas. Such cohesion could not be flexed and exercised through something like a national primary.
  • Well organized conventions have always been "coronation" events. Conventions only degenerate into arguments when the party concerned has been in trouble, as at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago that saw street fighting between students and the police as the convention selected Vice-President Humphrey. Of course parties want well-orchestrated, triumphal conventions – they want to give the impression that their man is a winner and that they are united behind him. Furthermore and more importantly, the pre-primary conventions were corrupt, horse-trading events, with deals made in the fabled smoke-filled rooms filled with power brokers deciding who would become President. Delegates, whose votes would in theory decide the victor, were controlled by interest groups such as regional political patronage machines and business lobbies. The primaries make the convention a true party event, with all members of the party able to contribute.[2]
[Add New]

No

  • An unrepresentative primary system damages the party strength If people feel that they are disenfranchised by the primary system, they are much less likely to vote and to generally participate in politics in the party that they affiliate with. This obviously damages the strength of political parties, which depend on an energized electorate.
  • The primary process reduces the level of debate at national conventions Traditionally, the conventions were sources of ideological and policymaking debate for organisations – both Republican and Democrat – that are far less pan-national than their European counterparts (especially when the party concerned is out of power). Now, the conventions are little more than coronation events. As a result, policy-making suffers and a party's position on an important issue may change from election to election, depending only upon the personal views of the candidate.[3]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Alternatives: Are the alternatives to the primaries inadequate?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Iowa and New Hampshire voters are diligent examiners. These voters are particularly noteworthy for the way they pick apart and scrutinize candidates. In a sense, they are voters that the rest of the nation can trust with the responsibility of going first in the primary process.


[Add New]

No

  • Iowa and New Hampshire are not socially or culturally representative of the U.S. New Hampshire also does not remotely represent the vast diversity of this country's racial, cultural and ideological background, according to the Census Bureau. The national average for Caucasians in a state population is 73.9 percent, but New Hampshire is over 95 percent white. African Americans and Hispanics make up only a combined miniscule 3.4 percent of the state population, while the national average is 27.2 percent. It also has a much smaller percentage of foreign-born individuals and people below the poverty level, while our median household income is significantly higher than that of the rest of the country
  • Early emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire disenfranchises minority voters For minority voters, the current system is a disaster. Since the black and Latino population is disproportionately low in Iowa and New Hampshire, minority issues are ignored during the first crucial months of every presidential campaign. African-Americans get to have some significant input when the current primary process gets to South Carolina, but Latinos have to wait longer.
  • Alternatives such as the Delaware Plan would help all candidates and encourage public engagement By allowing less populated states to start to vote and having the most populated to go last the alternative promotes better democratic participation as the winner of the party nomination cannot be yet established until all states have voted. The states that are last to vote still maintain their influence by the high number of delegates they can offer. This insures that the public maintains interest and participates more to the democratic process
  • “Backloading” of the primary schedule can help reduce the special interest effect contained in all “big money ‘ campaigns. The specific alternative model of allowing small states to go first provides a chance for particular candidates to start a campaign in smaller states with fewer funds. They can build their support so they can actually succeed in getting votes from the bigger states. By allowing this to happen, large billion dollars worth campaigns will not be the only possible way to be a presidential candidate. The big money behind campaigns generally enhance the special interest effect of certain groups or individuals that have founded campaigns and later may be able to get benefits trough policies or legislation.
  • Rotating regional primaries solve the problems of the current process. This would break the country into four regions, with the states in each region holding their primaries simultaneously on the first Tuesday of March, April, May, and June. Every year, the regions would rotate, with a new region getting the chance to go first. This would solve the problem of New Hampshire and Iowa receiving far too much voting power, would generally average-out the voting power of different states and voters, and yet would also preserve the basic state-primary systems and their important function in giving states due power.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Incumbent: Do US primaries give unfair advantage to the incumbent president?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Primaries help parties define their agendas. US primaries are not simply about people voting for a person they want to become president. They are about people talking with other members of their Party to craft the agenda of that party. The complicated primary elections, mixed with caucuses in which people get out and publicly voice their reasons for supporting a particular candidate, helps foster this agenda setting within the parties. This strengthens the ideas of a party.


[Add New]

No

  • Primary elections give unfair advantage to incumbent candidates. By making rival opposition candidates attack one another, using up their campaign funds and destroying their reputations, the primaries favour an incumbent president, who is sure of nomination and can wait until the election proper before unleashing his funds – which are normally higher than the challenger’s, even without the depletion of the challenger's funds through the primaries.[4]


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: Are the costs too high?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Primaries are an enormous and unproductive use of money The US presidential presidential primaries are a particularly long process, getting longer ever year in part due to what is known as "frontloading". The length of the process makes it necessary for competitive campaigns to raise many millions of dollars throughout the process. It would be better if the process was shorter, and thus less costly.


[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con resources

[Add New]

Yes

[Add New]

No


See also

External links

Books

Videos

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.