Large Political Parties Confuse Themselves
How the Democratic Party Can Easily Win the White House
by Hanno Beck
We neglect our exercise plans. We overeat. We do silly things that hinder our own goals.How about the Democratic Party? It certainly does silly things that hinder its own goals, and chief among these is the ridiculous way that the party selects who will be its candidate for president. By examining the history of how a presidential candidate is selected, we can see an obvious way to improve it. This would apply to any large political party, but the plan is particularly well-suited for Democrats.
A century ago, major political parties chose their presidential candidates by placing a handful of powerful men in a smoke-filled room. Those men would make the decision. If a party wants to operate that way, that is their business, but this method of selection has a big flaw -- the voters might dislike the chosen candidate. So a new process began to develop -- test candidates against one another in miniature practice elections; those candidates who win such "primary" elections might be more likely to draw voters in November's general election.
And sure enough, during the middle years of the 20th century, more and more influence was given to the voters, in the form of state party caucuses and primaries. Now a candidate for president would have to demonstrate at least a little popularity before he could win his party's nomination.
The long campaign season, featuring primary after primary, did give candidates a chance to test themselves against one another, and opportunities to inform and engage the public. But it also brought three major problems.
-
Problem 1. The long primary campaign season made a party's candidates into each others' opponents, people to be defeated. The public would see a months-long episode of embarrassing intra-party conflict.
Problem 2. The primary season's length meant that flaws in candidates, or even mere rumors, relevant or irrelevant, were more likely to be noticed and publicized -- these were flaws that other political parties would be sure to emphasize during the general campaign.
Problem 3. States such as New Hampshire, holding primaries earlier than most, obtained a much greater influence over the final choice of candidates than states such as New Jersey, which held primaries late in the season.
So what happened? The Democratic Party noticed that all three of these problems would be lessened if the primary season were shortened. During the 1980s and 1990s, states started edging their primary dates earlier and earlier. The campaign season was no longer an extended "market test" of a candidate, but a much shorter, bigger group of multiple primary events.
The unintended consequence of this shortened process was less influence for the voters. They had less and less chance to get to know a candidate. Mainstream media could -- and did -- eliminate candidates that worried them, simply by denying them early publicity. Front-runners were decided before the primary season even began. That's bad for voters and bad for democracy.
Finally we reached the current system of candidate selection. To campaign in large numbers of states that are holding simultaneous primaries, relatively unknown candidates (unknown because the campaign has hardly begun, so they haven't had a chance yet to build their nationwide grassroots support networks) must spend a lot of money. Where does that money come from? Wealthy corporations and wealthy contributors.
And so Democrats have arrived back to the old problem of a century ago -- the voters are not genuinely involved in selecting a candidate, and you might wind up with a poor choice that doesn't excite the public to vote.
Instead of the best, most exciting campaigner, with fresh ideas and energetic leadership, we see the Democratic Party selecting among cautious bureaucrats who are "in" with the wealthy. Many talented individuals don't even try to seek the nomination because the system is so badly flawed.
Above, I said the solution to this was obvious. It is. Stop giving the nomination to someone based on how many "delegates" he controls -- or purchases -- at the party convention. Instead, hold a contest. Whoever causes the most people to register to vote, as Democrats, for the first time (or after at least five years as a nonDemocrat), will be declared the winner of the nomination.
A few rules about time limits and how to certify which campaign signed up which new voters would be needed, but these would be far simpler and easier to use than the complex primary schedule and delegate assignment rules currently in place.
What would this new system mean? Now the candidates will be racing to build their party, not racing to crush one another. They will still be competing, but they won't be fighting. And the candidate whose campaign makes the strongest impression on the public will be the winner of the nomination -- that is going to assure a party of a fair number of November victories.
In a true democracy, you don't buy support. You earn it.
A political party can use a simple system such as this to ensure that their candidates will work hard helping the party to grow, instead of, as at present, hurting its credibility.
---------------------------------
Hanno T. Beck is publisher of The Progress Report.
| Email this article | Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
What's your opinion? Tell your views to The Progress Report:
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
