A Running Commentary

(compiled series of entries on subject of political primaries)

Part 1: The Nature & Purpose of Primaries

I have been asked frequently to explain the nature and purpose of the American primary system. Unlike any election in recent memory, the 2008 Presidential has placed a withering spot light on the arcane and often counterintuitive primary systems of both Democrats and Republicans. Assumptions by many voters on the workings of the nominating system have been shattered. Many are shocked not just that their votes do not directly determine a nominee, but also that primary structures vary significantly state to state.

To properly address these queries some common false impressions must first be dispelled regarding the American democratic system as a whole. Politicians throw around the words “democracy” and “freedom” so regularly than many people, understandably, think of the United States as a system where direct votes of the people determine the nation’s course. This is not the case.

What follows is an explanation of the American primary system and the democratic foundation upon which it rests, broken into a series of manageable length entries. The United States of America is not a pure democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. It is in fact a Federal Representative Republic; each of those terms has significant import and interaction and a brief examination of all three provides a basis for understanding primaries.

Part 2: A Federal System

It is ironic that the word “federal” immediately brings to mind the national government, when in fact it indicates a collective of sovereign states. Following the Revolutionary War, Americans were painfully afraid that a powerful national government would repeat the English tyranny they’d just escaped. So the Founding Fathers initially formed The Articles of Confederation, a system so weak that the States could effectively overrule or ignore the national government. Naturally this proved unworkable as how, for example, can a national government protect the interest of a nation if it is powerless to raise an army or taxes to pay for it?

The Constitution established a modified system where by the national government became sovereign on certain issues. Such powers included raising an army and making war, setting international treaties and tariffs, and taxation rights to funds these endeavors. However, any power not expressly given to the national government is “expressly reserved” to the States. In other words, there are many issues that are state issues and over which the national government has no jurisdiction. This is why most lawsuits cannot be appealed beyond the highest court of a particular state. Unless an area of law is given to the national government by the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority.

Despite even this limited structure, many 18th century Americans remained deeply concerned about the specter of a powerful national government. The Constitution itself was only barely ratified because of these fears, and it took powerful lobbying like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay’s Federalist Papers to win public support. Only the addition of The Bill of Rights as the Constitution’s first 10 amendments actually allowed it to pass. And it is upon those rights, especially the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association, that political parties find foundation for their primary systems.

Part 3: Representative Reasoning

Despite the tone of many a political speech, the United States is not a direct democracy. By design the American system is instead a representative one, placing a level of removal between the will of the people and governmental action. Where a pure democracy grants citizens direct control through vote or proxy, elected representatives exercise their own independent judgment on the people’s behalf.

The representative structure has several benefits, with practicality topping the list. Joe Blow citizen can’t be relied upon to decide the terms of a treaty with Tanzania, the annual state budget, or how many new snowplows a village needs. Representatives can make it their job to be knowledgeable and proficient on such matters.

Representatives also provide a layer of protection and objectivity, operating within a methodical system of checks and balances. Where an uninformed public is susceptible to rash decisions, representative government offers a safeguard against overreaction.

Finally, representatives are intended to be individuals of particular knowledge and ability. Community leaders who, despite the flack politicians often receive and deserve, are ideally suited for public responsibility. Such candidates by the people for a term. If the people don’t like the job they do, they fire them by voting them out the next time.

There are instances of direct democracy in the United States. Frequent examples include approvals of constitutional changes, local school budgets, and community zoning decisions on Wal-Marts. These scenarios are not the rule, nor should they be. Direct issue voting can be employed in political gerrymandering, such as Ohio’s inclusion of the gay marriage issue on the 2004 ballot to help drive out conservative votes for President Bush.

Given the representative nature of American government, the concept of primary delegates should not come as a surprise. The insulation of government from direct democracy and “the popular vote” is inherent in the American system. In fact, it wasn’t until the election of Andrew Jackson, president #7 if you’re counting, that regular citizens voted directly for the President at all. (The original design was for delegates to be sent by state legislatures, thus establishing an additional layer of removal.)

The main point here is that representative democracy in the United States is not a direct link between the will of the people and governmental policy or action. Primary delegate systems create a similar separation between the voting citizenry and the final nomination. But where do political parties drive the power to establish such systems? Glad you asked…

Part 4: Democracy in the American System (Why Primaries Are Fair)

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.