The above titles are fairly self-explanatory. After reading this section, one will understand how and why the United States should enact a national primary.
| Summary of the Primary: |
|---|
In order to narrow down the field of possible nominees who will be listed on a party's election ballot, rules could be added to require a candidate to get a certain percentage of the voters nationwide, or in every individual state they choose to run in, to sign petitions to qualify. If no candidate received a certain percentage of the vote in his or her party, a runoff election between the top two may be desirable to some people. I do not feel a candidate would necessarily have to have 51% of the primary vote, especially since a small minority of voters choose their party's nominee now. Ideally, there would not only be a different type of, but also greater public funding in the nomination process to help those candidates with less money to spend. See the "Public Funding" sub-section later on this page for more details. In researching this topic, I have found several variations of the national primary and though I think the above idea is the best, I would be willing to accept other options over what is now in place. They will be discussed in greater detail in the "History" section.
Top of page.
| Why the Primary is a Good Idea: |
|---|
Replacing the current system with a national primary would probably bring in different candidates than would have run before. While it could tempt more Ross Perot-like candidates (wealthy, inexperienced people who think they could "buy the election"), I think better candidates would also run who would not have stepped in before. As Mann (Kirkpatrick, et al, 1980, pg. 20) points out:
"one of the reasons [present officeholders are] discouraged now is because of the retail politics required of them in the early caucuses and primaries...there would be other ways of participating successfully in a one-day national primary than by pursuing full-time campaigning for several years in advance."To those who wonder if holding a national primary would make a difference in who was nominated over the current system, Bartles (1988, chapters 8, 9, and 10) shows examples of how the national primary would have at least made a difference in the order of candidates, sometimes in the nominee in past elections. More recently, Tolbert, Redlawsk, and Bowen (2009, pg. 73) say that when "simulating outcomes from the 2004 nomination process, economists have found...a national primary...would produce different party nominees."
A national primary is popular with the public. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. Karp and Tolbert report (2010, pg 775) "a 2008 national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary."
Note: This next paragraph contains some complex sounding terminology but the concepts are actually fairly simple, so please don't be dissuaded from reading.
Haskel (1996, pg. 98-99, 102-103, 123-130) tested the national primary option, along with other alternatives, using six "criteria of fairness" used to judge the actual voter preference for candidates. In brief, the criteria and how they apply in a presidential nomination are 1. Undifferentiatedness: "everyone's vote should have the same impact on the outcome" (pg. 98). 2. Neutrality: "no candidate should have a favored position in the voting system" (pg. 98). 3. Monotonicity: "improving the ranking of a candidate in...preference ordering should not cause that candidate to loose" (pg. 99) or vise versa. 4. Condorcet Criterion: if a candidate "beats or ties all others in pairwise comparisons" (pg. 103) that candidate should win. 5. Consistency: "if the electorate is divided into parts for election purposes" (such as different delegate selection methods in different states) "and if one alternative wins or ties in all parts, then it ought to be chosen in the whole" (pg. 103). 6. Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives: "the addition or subtraction of candidates who cannot, in any eventuality, win should not alter the outcome of the election" (pg. 99). Haskel found the national primary improved or eliminated nearly all the current "violations" of fairness that voters face in making their decision, while the current system violated all six. (pg. 131-132). The only one still violated is Monotonicity (if there was a run-off stipulation) but he says this "is not likely to happen" (pg. 124).
Top of page.
| Answering the Critics: |
|---|
One of the main arguments against is that only those who are rich or can raise a lot of money would be able to compete in a national primary (see for example Davis, 1980, pg. 266-267, Doyle, 1980, pg. 25, and DiClerico & Uslaner, 1984, pg. 36). However, as Gilgoff (2007, pg. 18) points out, in the 2008 primary "Candidates are expect to unveil war chest of up to $30 million" before the first primary or caucus, and "candidates with less than $10 million may be laughed out of the race." Of course much is invested in New Hampshire and Iowa, but it is not just in the early stages that candidates need to spend money. They must also have funds for the glut of states on "Super Tuesday", and now for big states like New York and California which have moved up their primaries. Shribman (1999, pg. 64) says "It takes real money to run in those megastates; candidates who don't have it lined up before the Iowa caucuses might as well call it quits." We have already had billionarses with no political experience try to buy their way into office. There was Ross Perot's runs for the White House in the 90s. Donald Trump said he was considering running for Presidnet in 2012 (See for example this article).
Big money is a separate problem with all our elections, not just with presidential elections. Again, I will address it later in the "Public Funding" sub-section.
Closely related to this argument is the opinion that a national primary would keep unknown candidates and political underdogs from having a chance to win the Presidency. Some would argue the current system gives outsiders at least a chance of winning (see for example, Crotty and Jackson, 1985, pg. 222-223, and DiClerico & Uslaner, 1984, pg. 36). A nice theory, but if one looks at the nominees for both parties in the last few decades, one does not find hardly any who could be considered "unknown". Even Jimmy Carter, the favorite example for many who advocate the above theory, does not really prove this argument. Davis (1980, pg. 265), a critic of the national primary plan, admits that Carter was fortunate in that "four of the five best-known candidates--Kennedy, Humphrey, McGovern and Muskie--chose not to enter the 1976 Democratic sweepstakes". If unknown candidates could get on enough state ballots with 1% or more voters' signatures through petitions, they would at least have a chance of getting national publicity before the national primary.
Another argument is that candidates would spend all their time in more populous states and regions, ignoring smaller states. But former Congressman Douglas Appelgate, a proponent of a national primary, once countered this argument: "I'm sure candidates will have a tendency to go to the major population areas. But they do that anyway, because the largest number of delegates are in the big states" (U.S. News & World Report, 1980, pg. 26). He said this in 1980, before the trend of front loading began. What he said is certainly more true today. Starr (2003, pg. 61) reports that some of the Democratic candidates scheduled campaign stops in several other states before heavily campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire. If candidates had to get at least 1% of a state's voters to sign petitions to get their names on the state ballot, candidates may spend at least some time in the small states early on to get that support. A relatively small number of votes in a lot of small states can add up in a national election.
I might add, candidates also go to big states for the money as well as votes. Shribman (1999, pg. 64) sites as examples high-tech Al Gore's fundraising in Silicon Valley, the computer hub of California, and George W. Bush's similar efforts in Texas with the oil industry and "his father's moneyed connections."
Opponents of the national primary also say, "State, local and regional issues could well become submerged by a national primary campaign" (Doyle, 1980, pg. 24-25). This may be so, but are these issues really being addressed honestly now by perspective candidates? When candidates go to states with specific issues and tailor their campaigns in those states to those issues, then move on to other states and do the same thing with different issues, how sincere are they? A good example is "one topic all presidential candidates agree on in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses (is) ethanol production is a very good thing and should be handsomly subsidized" (The Economist, 2004, pg. 24). Did they all think that way before running for President? Candidates are running for President of the United States and should be focusing on national issues, not on a series of regional, state and local issues that change depending on which state they are running in at a given moment.
Opponents believe that the national media would play too large a role in deciding presidential nominees. Davis (1997, pg. 204) believes such media influence would turn nominations into "gigantic popularity contests based on personalities rather than issues." Of course few would argue that the media does not already play a big role in helping the public decide who to vote for. Bartels (1988, pg. 283), for example, notes "criticisms of the [nomination] process often turn out to be criticisms of the role of the media in the process." Martin Plissner, a former network TV news executive, claims "..sad to say, CBS, NBC, and ABC created the modern New Hampshire primary" (1999, pg. 7). Throughout his book The Control Room, he discusses how the networks use polls and news coverage to make or break candidates. The critics would say the problem would only get worse under a national primary, and their arguments are persuasive. However, there is another side to this argument. Perhaps a national primary "would very likely reduce media interest, since a single event would be less suitable for sustained reporting than the present prolonged epic" (Hodgson, 1980, pg. 249). Nelson (1983, pg. 48) argues:
A national primary offers its own scorecard, which the present system does not. Polls provide relatively objective measures of how the candidates are faring before voting day. Reporters no longer would be called on to create, as well as report, the shape of the race.If the mass media (mainly television) is too influental, in deciding who should be President, one answer is to enforce "equal time" rules so more candidates can be heard in their own words on issues important to them. The role of the media, like public financing, is a campaign subject beyond the national primary so I will not elaborate on it in this website.
Finally, a key argument against the national primary is that political parties would not have enough influence over the nomination process. Some critics give rather dire predictions of what whould happen to our political system. Davis (1980, pg. 269) says "a national direct primary, one can predict with confidence, would turn political parties into little more than empty shells with only the covering labels of Democratic and Republican visible to the electorate." Ceaser (1982, pg. 136) says "under the national primary plan, the very concept of the political party appears to be threatened." I do not share this kind of fear-mongering. As Parshall and Mattei (2002, pg. 35-36) point out, a national primary day "will not affect who is qualified to participate in the primary, nor will is interfere with internal pary organization or activites, or control the content of the party's message." Atkeson and Maestas suggest that the parties might be helped instead of harmed, because "a national primary would provide a quick and decisive decision that many party leaders prefer" (2009, pg. 64). To those who worry about the party conventions becoming useless, former Congressman Applegate responds, "parties could restrict conventions to establishing platforms on which their candidates would be running in the fall" (U.S. News & World Report, 1980, pg. 26). There are proposals that would keep political party influence over the primary and keep the party convention relevant in the process and I will present those in the "Ideas" section. I do not think the public wants nominations to be decided solely in the "smoke-filled rooms" by political leaders at the conventions, as they often were in the past and neither do I.
At this time I want to mention the one thing that should debunk most of the above arguments against the national primary--the Internet! Star (2003, pg. 61) says of the internet: "After two campaigns in which the internet was, at best a peripheral factor, it has become an important tool for fundraising and orginazation." She is among many who credit the internet (for good or bad) in making Presidential races, starting in 2004, more nationalized. "The new approach is changing not only strategies but also the agenda. There's less pandering to local interests such as Iowa's ethanol industry" (2003, pg. 61). Tolbert and McNeal's research shows that "individuals with access to the Internet and online election news were significantly more likely to vote in the 1996 and 2000 persidential elections. Finally, a possible solution to the low primary/caucus turnout! To those who worry about the influence of television on a national primary, I offer this finding: "According to a study from the UCLA Center for Communications Policy, net user of all ages watch less television than non-users" (Information Superhighways Newsletter, 2001, pg. 14). Willis and Perra (2000, pg. 28) say
"Many political candidates have moved parts of their campaign strategy on-line because the internet allows them to get their messages to voters without having it filtered through the news media."Smaller states would benefit from the internet during a national primary as it would allow candidates to "virtually campaign" in those states. So even if a canditate does not visit a smaller state in a national primary, people in that state can, as they are doing now, keep up with candidate news/positions via the internet. To those who worry that the internet may someday end personal local campaigning by presidential hopefulls, Tumulty (2007, pg. 2) points out that in 2007, candidates such as Barak Obama and John Edwards often attended small fundraisers in smaller areas that would in the past not been financially practical. Why? Because they conduct high-tech fundraising in conjuction with those visits. As for a national primary keeping unknown candidates or candidates without a lot of money or big-time party connections from running for President, Paolino and Shaw (2003, pg. 193) counter:
The potential (and particular) value of the internet in American presidential campaigns is that it allows outsider candidates to use web sites to offset the disadvantages they would face in getting exposure, building an organization, and raising money."
Let us look briefly at the first major presidential hopeful to take advantage of the internet--Gov. Howard Dean in 2004. Although Dean did not win the Democratic nomination, his candidacy "suggests that the Internet may prove to be the great modern means of creating grassroots momentum" (Taylor, 2003, pg. 40). Dean raised a lot of money early on and was leading in the polls for a time, mainly because of his Internet base. And his contributions were for the most part from small doners averaging $112.00 (Taylor, 2003, pg 40). The fact that Dean eventually lost does not mean the Internet failed. It was only because Dean was "the first Web-launched candidate to go mainstream..." (Fineman, 2003, pg. 36). I believe Dean paved the way for 2008 and Barack Obama.
While Dean said he was not really high-tech himself, Obama has been described as "a BlackBerry addict and social networker with hundreds of thousands of Facebook 'friends'" (Keen, 2008, pg. 1). The CEA (2009, pg. 1) calls him "out first digital president." Keen says "Certainly Obama could not have challenged Hillary Clinton or radically outspent John McCain without the estimated $500 million in small donations mostly raised on the internet." But he didn't just use the internet to raise money. Here are some thoughts by Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager and architech of his internet campaign, while on a panel at an 11/07/08 conference in San Francisco (as presented by Miller, 2008, pgs. 1-2):
"Mr. Obama used the internet to organize his supporters in a way that would have in the past required an army of volunteers and organizers on the ground."
"Mr Obama's campaign took advantage of YouTube for free advertising. Mr. Trippi argued that those videos were more effective than television ads because viewers chose to watch them or received them from a friend instead of having their television shows interrupted.The CEA says "President Obama embraced this historic presidential election as an opportunity to demonstrate how technology has the power to connect a nation" (2009, pg. 1) The presence of the Internet is already nationalizing the Presidential primary race; the national primary idea is perfect for a 21st century online America.
The sections above show that a one day national primary would be clear, simple, and better than the current system we have for choosing our parties' leaders.
| Public Funding and the Primary: |
|---|
This website is not about public financing of campaigns, but a national primary certainly would work better with greater public financing. Given how well the internet now works for raising grass-roots funds from many small doners, I would still perfer a national primary without public funding to the current system. I believe however, that greater public financing or spending limits alone would not solve the current primary/caucus defects. Candidates still would have to compete in an unfair system as I describe it in the "Problems" section.
