Ideas for a national primary go back to the early part of the twentieth century. The national primary has been proposed and re-proposed by many top American political leaders of many eras. The proposal is not merely some fringe idea advocated by political novices, it has a long respected history that today's politcal leaders should revisit.
| The Progressive Era: |
|---|
But Haskell (1996, pg. 10) contends "one of (the Progressive movement's) main objectives was undermining the strength of party machines." Progressives sought to achieve this goal at the Presidential level by "converting the nominating process from its existing status as a 'privately' controlled associational activity to a state-run public function, ideally through a national primary, but failing that, through a system of delegate selection primaries enacted by the individual states" (Ceasar, 1982, pg. 23). Although the primary "reaches back to the 1840's" (Crotty and Jackson, 1985, pg. 13), the Progressives made it popular nationally, and "by 1912, 15 states had provided for presidential primaries in some form" (pg. 15).
The national primary was pushed by many Progressives during that time. The first proposal for a national primary was made in 1911 by Congressman Richard P. Hobson (D-AL) (Davis, 1997, pg. 195). In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, now running for President under the Bull Moose Party, supported the national primary (pg. 196). The idea gained such attention that Woodrow Wilson (not considered a Progressive) who defeated Roosevelt in 1912 also proposed the plan before Congress. "But this recommendation had low priority on Mr. Wilson's legislative agenda" (pg. 196).
At this point however, the Progressive movement and the primary system both began to decline. The Republican party was weakened "by the deep schism between the Old Guard and the Progressives [that] did little to spur expansion of the presidential primary and other Progressive reforms" (Davis, 1997, pg. 15). Also, Crotty and Jackson (1985, pg. 15) point out individual primaries brought "unpleasant side effects," and "led to disillusionment with the primary system." Progressives had made their mark however, and brought about some changes in how Presidential candidates were selected. The resulting compromise made over the next few years in how Presidents were nominated is described by Ceasar (1982, pg. 22-27) as a "mixed system" that was put in place by 1924. Party conventions (something many Progressives wanted to do away with) continued to be used, political brokering continued, but now with more of a balance between primaries and caucuses and more delegates bound to candidates. Still, this was a far cry from what Progressives first envisioned.
| The Post-Progressive Era: |
|---|
One national primary proposal he mentions was by former Senator William Langer (R-MN, 1940-1959) (pg. 219-223) which "Langer would have written into the Constitution itself" (pg. 222). Under his plan, "candidates would be placed on the ballot by obtaining a petition signed by one percent of the party's national membership. The candidate receiving the most votes, even if only a plurality, would be the party's nominee for President" (pg. 219). Another proposal came from former Senator George Smathers (D-FL, 1950-1962) (pg. 223-224). Under his plan, "[a] candidate would receive nominating votes from each state in proportion to his popular primary vote in that state. If one candidate received a majority of the nominating votes throughout the nation, he would be the party's candidate. If none received a majority, a second primary would be held, limited to the two leading candidates" (pg. 223). A more moderate proposal came from former Senator Paul Douglas (D-IL, 1948-1966) (pg. 227-228). His plan "would employ federal grants-in-aid to the states to promote primary elections. A preference poll would be held on the same day in all participating states. Delegates...would be bound to support the leader in the poll...until his vote fell below a tenth of the convention total" (pg. 227). Thus Douglas's plan would be "a reform of the present convention system, rather than a replacement of it" (pg. 228). One of the more notable national primary plans was proposed by former Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN, 1948-1963) (pg. 224-227), whom Pomper describes as "a leading Presidential aspirant of the past, who has known victory in primaries and defeat in conventions" (pg. 236). Like Douglas, his plan would have a one tenth threshold delegate pledge for a candidate, and retain the convention. The difference is "if no candidate won a majority, the convention would be required to choose its nominee from the three individuals placing highest in delegate votes" (pg. 225). Also, "the Vice-President would be chosen by the convention from the top three defeated Presidential aspirants". (pg. 227). I should point out Pomper was an opponent of such plans and favored party conventions choosing the nominees, but with some reforms (see chapter 9).
Davis (1980, pg. 245) notes several other political figures elected during the post-progressive era who supported a national primary, such as former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT, 1952-1976), former Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME, 1948-1972), former Senator William Proxmire (D-WI, 1957-1988), and former Senator George Aiken (R-VT, 1940-1974).
Despite the opinions of these long-serving political leaders, the national primary was not given much consideration during this era. However, a new era of reform would bring the idea greater attention.
| The 60s-70s Reforms: |
|---|
However, by 1968, major changes were happening in America; among the countless traditions being questioned was the way political parties were selecting their Presidential candidates. Bartles (1988, pg. 19-20) reports "even before the Chicago convention, demands for reform had been coming from the left wing of the Democratic party" regarding unfair state primary and caucus rules they felt kept them out of the process. These calls came to a head at the 1968 convention when anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy was defeated by Hubert Humphrey, "heir apparent to the Johnson administration" (Crotty and Jackson, 1985, pg. 29). As Crotty and Jackson (1985, pg. 29-30) note, Humphrey already had the unofficial support of many of the delegates, who were selected by local party leaders, before he even entered the race. McCarthy's supporters, along with supporters of recently assassinated anti-war candidate Robert Kennedy, were "at times ruthlessly suppressed within the convention hall in Chicago" (Haskell, 1996, pg. 21). This did not silence them, however, as some "delegates explicitly called for complete direct democracy and for a national primary" (Ceasar, 1982, pg. 31).
"After Chicago, and Humphrey's subsequent defeat in the general election, the impetus for change was, if anything, stronger and broader based" (Bartles, 1988, pg. 20). After 1968, Democrats formed a commission to recommend reforms in how they chose their nominee. It was unofficially called the McGovern-Fraser Committee. Among the Committee proposals eventually adopted were that all states adopt primary/caucus rules (some had none), make times and dates available to the public, choose delegates during the convention year, ending the winner-take all primary, and ending various forms of discrimination (DiClerico and Uslaner, 1984, pg. 9-16). Some of these reforms were also adopted by the Republican party because "many Democratically controlled legislatures...instituted presidential primaries for their states that were in many cases to be conducted for both parties" (Haskell, 1996, pg. 28). There was a sharp increase in the number of state presidential primaries in the aftermath of 1968, but a national primary was not one of the reforms adopted, not surprisingly because "most members of the McGovern-Fraser Commission...favored a reformed convention rather than establishment of regional or national primaries" (Davis, 1980, pg. 244). Perhaps the best chance to adopt a national primary, since its inception, was lost.
Despite the Commission's failure, I believe the reforms discussed above re-awakened interest in the national primary and lead to several such proposals in the 1970s. Davis (1997, pg. 196) says "probably the best-known model is the Mansfield Aiken bill, introduced in March 1972. Named after Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator George Aiken (R-VT)". This legislation required prospective candidates to have petitions from a minimum percentage of voters in at least seventeen states and included a runoff provision. "Under the Mansfield-Aiken bill, national conventions would still be held to select vice presidential candidates and presumably to adopt a platform" (pg. 196). Though this constitutional amendment failed, national primary supporters were not completely deterred. Another proposal in the 70s was a plan by former Rep. Joseph Gaydos (D-PA, 1968-1992) which was unique in that it "allow[ed] a candidate to win the first primary with 45 percent or more of the votes" (Davis, 1980, pg. 263). Former Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT, 1976-1998) introduced a national primary bill with some unique features including eliminating federal financing as exists for current primaries but limiting contributions to the calendar year of the election (Ceaser, 1982, pg. 127), and allowing voters registered as independents to vote in any party's primary (Davis, 1980, pg. 262). Former Rep. Albert Quie (R-MN, 1958-1978) introduced a national primary bill "typical of the most recent bills put in the legislative hopper" (Davis, 1980, pg. 263). It called for both the popular election of the President and Vice President, and would be held in August. As mentioned before, former Congressman Applegate also introduced a national primary plan, where "the country would be divided into five regions balanced as equally in population as possible" and a candidate would qualify for ballots in each region by obtaining signatures in each region (U.S. News & World Report, 1980, pg. 26).
Of course, none of these plans were adopted, and by the 1980s, the Democratic party began "reforming the reforms" undertaken just a few years earlier by forming another commission which recommended lowering the number of delegates chosen by primary and scaling back some of the direct-democratic reforms instituted in the 70s (see DiClerico and Uslaner, 1984, pg. 32-33 and Haskell, 1996, pg. 26-27).
| Comments on the National Primary Proposals: |
|---|
A national primary does not need to be initiated by amending the constitution. "Court rulings in recent years have supported the national parties' right to dictate rules of delegate selection to the states" (Haskell, 1996, pg. 73). Several proposals ask a candidate to get petitions from at least 1% of the voters, party members, etc. I agree, and perhaps 1% is even too small. Congressman Applegate's concept of qualifying in regions of equal populous would help give a candidate more national legitimacy, but I would rather stay away from anything resembling regional primaries.
I do not agree with eliminating campaign spending limits, such as presented in Weicker's bill. If we had a national primary without campaign spending limits we would still have only the wealthy, or those able to raise a lot of money, being able to seriously compete, as many critics fear. We should have public financing and spending limits as well as a national primary. Also, I oppose open primaries as we have now and would not support an open national primary. Primaries should not have people trying to influence who will be a nominee from a party they do not belong to. More than one proposal would have set the national primary in August. Why in August is unclear to me; as I said in the "Overview" section, the primary would be best held in late May or early June. Having it in August would merely give rise to more criticism that the election season is too long.
I like the idea of selecting a Vice Presidential Candidate from a runner-up, as advocated by Quie and Kefauver. The un-elected Vice President is not only "a heartbeat away from the Presidency", as the saying goes, but also seems to be more influential in policy-making in recent years, so why not have the Presidential candidate choose from among other popular challengers? Of course there must be an exception made if none of them wanted the job (or voluntarily stepped aside), which certainly could be the case. How the Vice President is chosen however, is not my main concern here.
| The Present State of the National Primary Idea: |
|---|
Since the early 80's the national primary has not been advanced by many political leaders; it is now mainly heard from only a few political scientists and experts. McKeever (1990, pg. 742), in criticizing the current primary system as too long and too localized, says "urgent consideration does need to be given to such alternatives as regional primaries, or even a national primary, within a limited time span." In considering the effect the primary would have on parties and candidates, Paul (1997, pg. 722) says "a one-day primary might increase the probability that candidates would be selected with the necessary qualities to win in November." Nelson (1983, pg. 34) believes "a national primary, accompanied by televised debates and perhaps a modified voting system--seem more appropriate" than the current system or any other proposed reforms. He further states "a national primary would probably prove an appreciably better--that is, clearer, simpler, and more democratic--presidential nominating system" (pg. 46). Hodgson (1980, pg. 250) believes "the national primary...could strike a happy balance between the element of party legitimization and the element of popular choice." As for how the office of the presidency would be affected:
"A national primary...might change the sort of men who get into the White House. And that might be to the good. It might also surround them in the White House with different kinds of men and women on their staff, making them less dependent in office on the bag carriers and traveling companions who have been so prominent in the White House since 1960, and that would be even better" (pg. 50).Ladd (1980, pg. 132-142) spells out a unique primary plan. On the one hand, he proposed increasing the number of unelected delegates who are pledged to no one, and having the nominee chosen at the conventions. Then he also called for a national primary to choose the rest of the delegates, binding them to a candidate on the first convention ballot. He proposed that national parties choose candidates for the national primary, but also allows them to get on the ballot through petition. While Ladd's plan is a worthy attempt having the best of both worlds, I think I agree with Ceaser who said it may be "in a sense too clever for its own good" (1982, pg. 146). His proposal has supporters though. Mann (Kirkpatrick, et al, 1980, pg. 15) proposes a similar mixed convention and national primary system, even acknowledging Ladd (pg. 16). His main reason for supporting the national primary is to bring back the legitimacy that he believes the current system is loosing (pg. 20). Wattenberg (In Grassmuck, 1985, pgs. 57-58) also proposes a variation of the national primary--"a national primary to be preceded by a party endorsement convention." Faucheax (1994) proposes the opposite--a national primary with delegates (that could be uncomitted), and if no one candidate received a majority, then a convention would decide.
There may be good news concerning the national primary. Interest seems to be increasing since I last (too long ago!) researched and updated this site. While few politicians and party leaders are supporting a national primary, there seems to be more more political pundents and scientists publically supporting the idea in this decade, and several just in the last few years. Parshall and Mattei (2002, pg. 38-39) contend that "the current nomnation schedule is arbitrary and violative of basic First and Fourteenth Amendment principles," and "the only alternative, therefore, is to set a single date for all states." Plissner (1999, pg. 204) states "in a rational world, all of the state primaries and caucuses would be replaced by one national primary, giving all of the country's Republicans and Democrats, wherever they live, an equal chance to cast a meaningful vote." Atkeson and Maestas, when discussing reforms to the current system, suggest "the parties could consider a more radical change with a national primary" because it "would focus broad voter attention on the race as candidates compete nationally instead of locally and reduce the effects of selective mobilization that come with a compressed schedule combined with state-based results" (2009, pg. 64). Crain (2008, pg. 9), when commenting on his Michigan's attempt to be more revelant in the nomination process by moving up it's primary, and being ostracized for doing it, said "this whole mess shows once again why this country needs a national priimary without any super delegates." Why don't we have a national primary? In Crain's opinion--"It's too simple" (2008, pg 9). Altschuler (2008, pg. 1206) sums it up nicely...
"By simplifying the system, increasing voter turnout, making all votes equally meaningful, and leading to a more representative electorate, and national primary would eliminate many of the serious flaws of the current system and therefore should be more seriously considered than it has been.On a more personal note, back in the 2008 campaign, CNN ran a story (which was of course repeated throughout the day) on how to possibly change the current nomination system. The national primary idea was touched upon, and my website was featured on CNN! Sure it was only for a few seconds, but what % of people can say their website was featured on CNN? Hopefully that will not be my site's only fifteen minutes of fame.
Clearly the idea for a national primary is not dead, only in need of greater publicity. The arguments for a national presidential primary are still as relevant as they were in 1911. As the current process sinks even further into an unjust and unfair state, perhaps more people will once again call for real reform.
