By Marc Jampole
Someone took an online poll that finds that more than half of all Americans think that the primary system is rigged.
Someone took an online poll that finds that more than half of all Americans think that the primary system is rigged.
If the primaries are rigged, the fix favors rural counties
and rural states, which tend to be more conservative. In that, our nominating
process resembles our bicameral system—one house for direct representation from
a relatively small population zone and one house for representation from a
larger geographic region. Geographic regions with smaller populations (rural)
have the same representation as those with larger populations (urban).
Bicameral representation is built into the Constitution.
The biggest complaint about primaries is that independents
in some states aren’t allowed to vote in the primaries of the various political
parties. And why should they? If you want to vote, join the party. It doesn’t
even cost any money. All you have to do is note your party allegiance when you
register or reregister to vote. In many states, you can designate your
political party online.
I think the states in which voters can cross over or
independents can vote in either party are unfair, and have the potential for
rigging, because independent voters who don’t give a hoot about the Party can
change the final outcome. Each major party has had consistent positions for
decades, although individual party members can differ as much as Bernie Sanders
and Jim Webb do. Independents tend to warp the vote. That certainly happened this
year in the states that allow independents to vote in primaries and crossover
voting. In the case of the Republicans, the warping has been harmful, because
it gave additional votes to a candidate who is far more liberal on social
issues and far less globalist on trade issues than anyone else in the current
GOP. By contrast, the independents who poured into Democratic primaries to vote
for Bernie Sanders have helped the Democratic Party to emphasize and rededicate
itself to what has been its progressive core since FDR.
The question as to the fairness of the various ways to
apportion delegates is complicated. Our electoral system suggests that states
should award delegates on a winner take all basis, but apportioning them
according to the percentage of the vote won seems fairer. The more important
issue, I believe, is that every state apportion delegates the same way. I like
the idea of giving from a third to half the delegates to the statewide winner
and awarding the other delegates according to Congressional districts because
it preserves the bicameral nature of our government (some by population, some
by geography) and remains essentially democratic.
Caucuses favor candidates who can establish on the-ground
campaigns that appeal directly to voters. The problem is that so few of the
voters participate in caucuses, even in a good year. It surprises me that the
very people who have been exploiting the limited democracy of caucuses, Sanders
supporters, use increasing democracy as the primary reason to open primaries to
independents. They seem to forget that caucuses are only open to party members.
I have never liked caucuses because they are less democratic than primaries,
and can easily be manipulated by a party faction, as Cruz has been able to do
this election cycle.
The other controversial issue related to the nominating
process is the existence of super delegates. Those who complain about super
delegates say that they were never elected, nor have voters/caucus goers
designated whom the super delegates should support. Now that’s inherently undemocratic.
But let’s take a look at the issue from the point of view of
the party. Who defines the party and controls the party? Who raises money for
the party? Who represents the party in our various elected bodies all over the
country? It’s the super delegates. Many super delegates are elected officials.
Don’t you think that every Democratic Senator should get a vote as a delegate
at the Democratic convention?
At the beginning of the party system in the United States,
there were no primaries. A small elite of rich folk and politicos got together
and decided who should run. Then came conventions, caucuses and primaries, each
an attempt to further democratize the process of selecting candidates. Thus,
those who say super delegates make the convention less democratic are looking
at what happens the wrong way. In point of fact, primaries make the conventions
more democratic.
It is not every year that the super delegates coalesce
around one candidate as quickly as the Democrats have done this year, but it’s
not every year that a candidate has as impressive a resume or as extensive a
political network as Hillary Clinton. Many of the super delegates have said
that they are willing to change their minds if Sanders would win the popular
vote. Of course that hasn’t happened, as Hillary has racked up more votes than
all the Republican candidates combined and millions of more votes than Bernie.
Low voter turnout is a primary reason a narcissistic
demagogue is closing in on the Republican nomination. Note that if the
Republicans had more super delegates, it would be easier to stop Donald Trump.
They serve as a balance against the momentary irrational actions of voters, in
a similar way that selecting Senators by state and letting them serve six years
serves as a balance to the more volatile House of Representatives. In the 1950s
and 1960s, most progressives complained that the conservative
Senate—representing a prior era—was holding the country back; for the past few
years, we’re been relieved that the more liberal Senate—still representing a
prior era—is around to prevent the right-wing house from sending the country
into a deep depression. In a certain
sense, the super delegates perform the same function. It’s another manifestation of the bicameral
nature of American governance.
In the case of this year’s Democrats, the super delegates
are not seeking to thwart a potentially disastrous candidate, but rather to
support the one they think will be more successful pursuing the Party’s agenda,
and who at the same time has received more votes despite spending less money
than the other major candidate.
If I were king for a day, we would go to an all-primary
system with clusters of six states taking turns going first, second and third
over a 10-week primary season that starts in April. I would award one half of
all delegates to statewide winners and another third by congressional district.
One sixth of all state delegates would be super delegates, many of those
designated by elected title, e.g., U.S. Senator, mayor of the largest city.
Back to reality, where we have a complicated,
cobbled-together nominating process, but one that is transparent and to a large
degree reflects the essential bicameral nature of the American political
system. The rules in each state are readily available in plain English and
often in other languages. It’s incumbent on the candidate and her-his staff to
learn those rules. Instead of complaining about the rules, play the game. Only
by winning will you have a chance to change the rules, and the only way to win
is to play the rules.
Of course, this advice only applies to those lucky enough to
have access to millions of dollars in campaign funds. To make the system more
democratic, we would do better not to sweat the nominating process but instead
to limit the funds that can be expended by candidates to
open up the system to less well-heeled candidates.
