A Running Commentary

The high drama of the 2008 Presidential primaries, especially for the Democrats, has lead many to question the logic of the American nominating system. From the prominence of certain states like Iowa and New Hampshire, to the role of political parties and their delegates, people, politicians, and pollsters alike have questioned the structure’s logic and fairness. This concluding part 4 of “The Nature and Point of Primaries” aims to explain, if not defend, the American system.

Democratic freedom in the United States, enumerated most explicitly in the Bill of Rights, includes the individual freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, and the press, among others. As claimed by the Declaration of Independence, these freedoms are self-evident, God-given, and inalienable. Thus, they are not derived from the government; individual freedom is the basis of government not the other way around.

It is these individual rights, those of speech and assembly in particular, that provide foundation for American political parties and their primary systems. Citizens have the right to assemble as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, dog lovers, stamp collectors, whatever. You can make your own group and, generally speaking, make your own rules for joining the group. Anyone is free to start one, you can choose collectively what you want to advocate, and no one can make you join or prevent you from leaving.

Political parties (national, state, and local) are really just big, free-assembling clubs. They decide what they stand for, when they’re going to have their primaries, and how to award their delegates. They can caucus (like in Iowa), do winner-takes-all (like Republicans in New York), or award delegates proportionally (like the Democrats). If you don’t like it, you can either change your party from within or get a new one. You don’t have to be in a party to run or vote for office.

Superdelegates

Despite these rights, the larger and more prominent a party becomes the more it is subject to public opinion and pressure. If a party frustrates or mishandles members enough, that party will most assuredly pay a price. Demoralized members may refuse to vote, cut off contributions, and even migrate to another party. The Democrats’ superdelegates are a perfect example. If Hillary Clinton goes into her party’s convention significantly trailing Barack Obama, yet swindles the nomination through superdelegates, it could be the end of the modern day Democratic Party. George Washington always maintained that self-interest is the most reliable check on power, and the principle clearly applies here. Superdelegates might have the technical right to support whomever they wish, but you can bet that few if any will be willing to do so if it means career suicide.

Michigan & Florida

Another topic of hot debate has been the “disenfranchisement” of voters in, among others, Michigan and Florida. Delegations from those states stand to be excluded from their convention after state organizations moved their primary dates up in violation of national party rules. While “disenfranchisement” is a terrific buzzword, especially since the 2000 Presidential, it doesn’t mean the same thing here as it would in the general election. No one is taking away citizens’ right to vote for President. They are simply losing their say in how their free-assembling club chooses its candidate. As discussed with superdelegates above, the pressure is on the party to keep its members happy. If Clinton keeps it close, you can bet the DNC will develop a resolution for its Florida and Michigan members. Though the national party has the right to set it’s own rules, the potential of driving away Michigan and Florida members is something the party will strenuously avoid.

Iowa, New Hampshire, & Primary Order

Finally, many have complained about the disproportionate influence that early primary states have in the nominating process. States like Iowa and New Hampshire have a lot of sway on the storyline of any primary season because they get to go first. You can’t totally blame the Floridas, Wyomings, and Michigans of the world for wanting to move their primaries up and share the limelight. Some have even called for one big primary day where all states would vote at once. But this aspect of the primary system has a solid rationale.

First of all, you can’t have parties deciding things like primary dates based on the chairmen of the Michigan Democratic party being annoyed that he’s not in with the cool crowd in Iowa. That’s just stupid. Everyone will get to vote in Michigan and it is a big and important state, especially for Democrats pursuing the blue-collar vote.

More importantly, think about the states that are represented early: Iowa (the Midwest heartland), New Hampshire (the northeast), Nevada (the west), and South Carolina (the south). By putting these states first, parties force their candidates to address and campaign on issues important to those constituencies. If Florida, New York, and California all went first, or even worse, if all of the primaries were held at the same time, then the interests of smaller states and demographics would take a back seat. Candidates would flock to the major media centers to pursue the most densely populated and delegate rich states.

Primary Rationale

The American primary process mirrors the ingenious logic of the electoral system found in the Constitution. Take the bi-cameral Congress for example. On one side, members of the House of Representatives give voice to states based on population; the larger states have more representatives and thus more clout. But on the other side, the Senate gives equal representation to states both small and large; every state gets to representatives.

Likewise, while primary season gives large states more delegates, early primaries in key smaller states and an elongated system over all give citizens a more equal hand in the nominating process. In many states, like with the Democrats in Nevada, parties have taken the extra step of weighting votes to overcome disproportionate turnout. Based on the percentage of registered voters, if there is a huge turnout in the cities but not rural areas, then rural votes count more, say 5 to 1, to make up the difference. Candidates are thus motivated to pay attention to all regions and demographics, not just Reno and Las Vegas.

There may be some issues with the primary system; let’s face it things are rarely perfect when it comes to politics. But the American system as a whole is surprising clever. Despite a population well over a quarter of billion people, the United States affords its citizens the opportunity to vet candidates extensively and to participate in the political process on an impressively local level.