The woes of the primary system
I’ve long been troubled by the primary system, which has a number of flaws. Of course, the “smoke-filled room” system that preceded it had a number of other flaws. If it were still in place, people would be railing against the “elites” even more than they are now, and that’s saying something.
The primaries are problematic, however, because:
(a) they lock votes in very early, before people have time to really get to know the candidates, and without the knowledge of how candidates will react to subsequent events that may be very revealing
(b) they allow certain states to disproportionately (and probably prematurely) affect the election by setting up a momentum effect in favor of the candidate of the early states’ choices
(c) they allow opponents of each party to crossover and malignantly attempt to game the other party’s primary choices. It’s hard to see how to correct for that, since we want to be able to vote for either party, and there are bona fide reasons for changing affiliation. But (for example) I’m convinced that a lot of registered Independents in states where Independents can vote either party in the primaries are not really Independents at all.
(d) a candidate supported by a minority can win if there are so many other candidates from another bloc that they split the votes of that bloc. If primaries are meant to reflect the will of the majority of the people, that’s a flaw. In the past, this was a major complaint of conservatives—that it led to the nominations of RINOs over and over, because the conservative vote was split. This seems to have been the case in certain years (for example, I believe it led to McCain’s nomination). This year it looks to be the mechanism by which Trump could win it, unless a significant number of other candidates drop out.
This year, there is actually the possibility of a brokered GOP convention. That’s always a possibility when there are a lot of candidates. But this year it may be a bit more possible (there certainly are a lot more candidates to begin with—at least, a lot more candidates who aren’t obscure):
Because of the nature of the current Republican nomination battle, however, the possibility of an open convention has become less far-fetched than usual. It could happen this time, especially if Donald Trump wins more delegates than any other candidate, but falls short of the required majority. Rival forces would then try to take him down in the full glare of a convention brawl.
The last open GOP convention was held 68 years ago, when New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey won the 1948 nomination on the third ballot. More recently, party elites have united around likely victors ”” based on key primary wins and national poll numbers ”” well before the eventual nominees accumulated delegate majorities. That happened with Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996. Of course, these were all conventional politicians…
Should Trump go to Cleveland with a near majority of delegates ”” let’s say 50 or 60 votes shy of the 1,236 needed to win ”” it’s probable he could wheel-and-deal his way to a majority. But if he’s short by a couple of hundred delegates, all bets are off.
To beat Trump, his adversaries would need to unite around a single alternative…
Please read the whole article.
One thing I’ve felt more and more strongly during the last couple of weeks is that, any way you slice it, we’re if for a very very bumpy ride. The mood of the voters I’ve talked to (granted, not a huge sample, but nevertheless quite a few) on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, is fear.
Chalk that up to another progressive idea gone south. It was easier in Lincoln’s day to get a better sense of the public mood by local party delegates due to the distances involved. If you went to your local Republican club meeting you elected delegates from your local neighbors (then opened the whiskey ). You trusted them to take your consensus to the state convention.
The progressives took advantage of the fact that power brokers started to take over many of the local delegates and poisoned the well.
But all the maneuvering still took place in the conventions. And that is not a bad thing.
Oh by the way, did you see Kareem Abul Jabarr’s columns on Trump and Conservatism and how Trump responded? The Donald remains a class act by golly which is the worst thing he will do as President. He has no interest in actually Governing.
A lot of the 2008 GOP primaries were “winner-take-all”, so McCain got all of the delegates in State X while garnering only a plurality, as low as 35% IIRC, of the votes cast in said State.
Here are the 2016 GOP rules for primaries:
“States that hold their primaries between March 1 and March 14, 2016, will award their delegates on a proportional basis, meaning that no one candidate could likely win the nomination before late-voting states get to hold their primaries.
“States voting on March 15, 2016, or later will award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis, meaning candidates will likely pay more attention to them.”
If Trump stays true to course throughout, favored by 30-40%, he will be the nominee. The voices of the voters be damned.
This is the will of the GOP Establishment. Which apparently abhors a tumultuous open convention.
(d) a candidate supported by a minority can win if there are so many other candidates from another bloc that they split the votes of that bloc.
This problem goes far beyond the quadrennial election for POTUS. It also affects the biennial elections for congressmen, the sexennial races for senators, gubernatorial races, state elected positions and who knows what else.
The egregious national races that come to mind are Todd Akin, where Democrats helped game the system to get the easiest candidate to beat over Tea Party favorites who split the vote. Then there’s Sen Ron Johnson (WI) of the RINO party and geezer Tommy Thompson (WI) also of the RINO party, both of whom won with pluralities after multiple Tea Parties couldn’t coalesce around one of several good conservative candidates. Thompson promptly lost to a lesbian moonbat, Tammy Baldwin.
There’s two senate seats lost because conservatives couldn’t get behind just one good candidate, and another is a useless RINO who might as well be a Democrat. There are no doubt many, many more examples.
Maybe the Tea Parties should organize pre-primaries in each state and agree to back the winner against one or more RINOs and let them split the vote in the actual primary for a change. I believe that both houses would be a lot more conservative now if that had been done since 2009.
That’s why it is imperative that you support your candidate of choice. Many times they will drop out of the race b/c they run out of money. If you send them money, they can continue on. I donated some money early in this whole process to keep several candidates in the race. It wasn’t much, but I wanted them all to stay in it and give it a shot and not stop trying b/c of money reasons.
Frog:
Actually, the establishment would like nothing better than to go back to the smoke-filled room. They wouldn’t mind a fight at the convention, if necessary.
I think you have it backwards. Primaries were a surrender to populism, not elitism. Yes, the establishment tried to organize them in a way that they liked, but they would much rather there were no primaries at all.
Recognize the problem Neo, and I am not sure that there is will be an acceptable answer.
The convention system served the purpose for a long time–although there were clearly hiccups along the way. I do not completely buy that it was just smoke filled rooms. It did have the advantage of putting the choice in the hands of the party faithful who were interested enough to do their homework, qualify for, and attend the conventions. I do not think we can go back.
One idea might be to hold all primaries in the same week. I doubt that would sell, because candidates would wail that they could not engage in retail politics. Some would also complain that it gave the well heeled candidates too great of an advantage. So.
One problem is, of course, is the plethora of fake debates–and perhaps of equal importanance–the media post-debate analysis. We now hear constantly that this or that one had the most “positive moments” which too often means “gotcha” moments. If there is the will, the RNC should be able to fix this to some extent. My first suggestion would be to abandon the debate fiction. Give each candidate X number of camera minutes to make their case to the public. No real moderator, other than a time keeper; and no stupid questions. If a candidate wants to use the allotted time for ad hominem attacks rather than discussing issues and qualifications, let the public decide if that is Presidential. If networks don’t want to support that format, buy the time.
This particular cycle has highlighted the worst aspects of the primary system. Just too many Republican candidates, and no way to whittle the field if they are determined, and able, to stick. Wish I knew what some of them are thinking. I hope it is not perceived as wrapped up before the field does shrink to manageable proportions. I hope this is not a template for the future.
Of course a big part of the issue this year is, you guessed it, the media. They have chosen to hype Iowa beyond all bounds. As I recall, in the past it was noted that Iowa is a fairly small, and electorally, a very funky state. Sure it was first, but that was taken in context. So was New Hampshire, need I say more about funkiness? Now, one would really believed that Iowa, and certainly if they and New Hampshire align, would set the tone for the whole nomination process.
I still don’t believe it, but the media would suggest that it is true.
I wonder what folks in SC, Florida, Ohio, Pa, NC, VA, and even California think of that? They may have a say yet. Someone pointed out that even I, in California, have a disproportionate say because there are few Republican voters, but many, many delegates at stake.
I know this suggestion runs afoul of the rules of the game as set forth by the Supreme Court, but I get so tired of two year races for the Presidency and the distortions of the primary system that I wish a simple antidote could be instituted:
1. No money can be spent on a campaign before Labor Day of an election year;
2. A national primary the first Tuesday in October; and
3. The election as is.
Then we could enjoy at least some time away from politics.