Get Rid of Primaries
Less democracy and stronger parties could be a winning formula.
Welcome back to The Burnett Breakdown. As always, please subscribe so that you don’t miss any newsletters. Also, if you are feeling generous and have extra change to spare then become a paid subscriber!
Democracy
The word “democracy” comes from two Greek roots: dēmos or “common people” and kratos or “rule, strength.” The term used to describe a political system was initially used by the ancient Athenian ruler Cleisthenes in the 5th century B.C. It developed in the context of ancient Athens in which involvement in the affairs of the community, known as the polis, was highly esteemed. The ancient Athenians prided themselves in this form of government and despised the notion of being ruled by a tyrant or monarch.
The ancient Athenians are not alone in their admiration of democracy. There is no more democratic statement than the opening three words of the United States Constitution: “We the people.” Americans are not only proud of the fact that their country is a democracy but believe (rightly) that America is the symbol of democracy to the entire world.
Despite its meaning of “rule by the people,” the term democracy has never been unlimited though. Every society has put limitations on who gets to rule as “the people” and in what way. In ancient Greece, the limitations were based on age and gender so that only adult males counted as “the people” who could rule. In the United States, the limitations are also based on age so that only those over the age of 18 years old can vote.
In fact, these limitations are often a point of contention and political battling. The 14th, 19th, and 26th Amendments were passed through the political process and all involve the limitations placed on those who can vote being expanded to include more people. People have always argued about who should be included in “the people” and that is a worthy argument to have, but that is different than arguing for no limits whatsoever. No limit democracy in America would mean noncitizens, babies, criminals, and everyone else getting to vote in American elections.
There are also limitations on when and how voting can take place. There is a day designated by the federal government on which the general election for federal positions must take place. Individual states and municipalities set the various precincts and establish other voting procedures that must be followed. Every voter is limited in the number of votes that they can cast. Again, people can argue about what those limitations should be, but nobody argues that there should be absolutely no limitations. In a no-limit democracy, “the people” would possess the power to call an election whenever and however they want. In other words, a no-limits democracy would be anarchy.
American life doesn’t just consist of limited democracy, but there are many aspects of American life that are largely undemocratic. For example, families, businesses, churches, and almost any other organization hardly ever put something up for an organizational-wide vote. There is almost always some sort of hierarchy where those at the top of the hierarchy (AKA the “leader”) make the most important decisions.
This is the case because organizations could not function any other way. If a corporation allowed all of its employees to have a say in every decision made by the company, then the corporation would quickly go out of business due to bad decisions being made or the inefficiency of the entire process. This principle applies to every organization all the way down to your immediate family.
I say all of this because we accept the need to limit “rule by the people” throughout life except in the case of political parties. The very idea of limitations on democracy in the political realm is enough to get you accused of being an authoritarian; however, I think that less democracy is exactly what we need.
Primaries
To be clear, I do not think all limitations on democracy are created equal. I am not in favor of many of the limitations in years past that restricted voting based on immutable characteristics like gender and race. The 14th and 19th Amendments are rightfully here to stay.
I also don’t think that all democratic elements of our political system should be removed. The House of Representatives is one of the most democratic elements of our system and there are good arguments for expanding the size of the House to make it more democratic. I also like that most states have laws that encourage/force their electors to vote for the presidential candidate that won the popular vote of their state.
Nonetheless, there is one reasonable change that would be less democratic but beneficial for our country overall: get rid of primaries.
In fact, one more time so the people in back can hear: GET RID OF PRIMARIES.
This idea always startles people because most people only know a world in which they have been able to play a part in choosing a party’s candidate. However, primary elections were a product of the Progressive Era and did not really apply to presidential candidates until after 1968.
Prior to primaries, political parties determined their own candidate through a convention in which only delegates voted. Through backroom deals and promises, the delegates would decide who would represent their party and announce their selection to the country. Political conventions were originally created because that is where the delegates’ votes were cast and the announcement was made.
This may sound too exclusive but there were real benefits to this sytem. For example, the candidates had to garner support from a majority of party delegates that ranged from the most fringe elements of the party to the most moderate faction. The party delegates had a vested interest in choosing candidates that were electable in a general election because the backroom deals were very often contingent on that. Finally, the party apparatus had immense power which allowed it to govern acceptable and unacceptable behavior/views.
Primaries in many ways perform the exact opposite functions. Primary elections are notorious for low turnout. For example, the highest turnout in North Carolina over the last four primary cycles (2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022) was 37% of registered voters. Georgia had record turnout in early voting this primary season that led it to a have whopping total turnout of less than 27% of registered voters in its Senate races. In Ohio, less than 50% of registered voters have turned out to vote in primaries every election dating back to 1986 including this year. There are probably exceptional states out there, but by and large less than half of registered voters participate in primaries.
The people that do vote in primaries are the most passionate part of a party’s base which means candidates are incentivized to cater to the most extreme faction. Matters are made worse when primaries simply require a candidate to win a greater percentage of votes instead of at least a majority. This means a small percent of an already small percent of registered voters are choosing the candidates for each party.
Think back to the 2016 Republican primaries. There were 12 major Republican candidates that ran in the Iowa (caucus technically but same principle), 9 in the New Hampshire, 6 in the South Carolina, and then 5 for the next dozen or so. Because there were so many candidates, the vote was divided and the candidate that was able to gin up passion the most (Donald Trump) was able to capture the highest percentage while still not winning a majority. In fact, Donald Trump would go on to win the Republican nomination with less than half (45%) of Republicans who voted in the primary voting for him. Oh, and this was with a total Republican turnout of less than 15% of registered voters nationwide.
It’s not the small percentage that is the problem (party delegates under the old system were an even smaller total percentage), but the composition of that tiny percentage. It’s the most motivated, which usually equate to most angry, faction of the party that determines the candidate. This makes the environment ripe for populism to run rampant as politicians stoke the passions of the angriest faction in an attempt to win the primary.
It used to be that candidates would run to their base during the primary but would run to the middle during the general election. As America becomes more polarized though, politicians become less fearful of losing a general election than a primary election. This disincentivizes members of Congress to moderate and compromise when they are in office. This is a reasonable fear considering the primary system is set up to reward the most extreme, not the moderate.
If you are a politician in a solidly blue or red district/state (which is becoming the norm), any sort of compromise with the “other side” will leave you vulnerable to someone further to your left or right ginning up the base of your party against you for “caving.” You see, they would never cave to the radicals on the other side.
This can be avoided by simply refusing to compromise. Continue to placate the base and the most passionate faction of your party and nobody will ever beat you in a primary election. In theory, you could compromise and accomplish a litany of policy victories in order to attract moderates in the general election, but if you can’t win your own primary it doesn’t matter.
This makes politicians weary to get anything done as to not “stain” their record by compromising. Everything then gets pushed to the courts to figure out and/or president to rule through executive order because the branch that is supposed to create laws won’t. This magnifies the importance of the presidential election because the president increasingly has more and more power and appoints the judges who have more and more power.
Because the president is elected nationally, everything becomes national. The importance of state and local governments shrinks as politics become more centralized in Washington D. C. Our constitutional structure of federalism, checks and balances, and compromise is thrown out of whack leaving everybody unhappy.
I constantly hear people remark, “is this the best we can do?” in reference to this political predicament. Well, in a primary system like we have, the answer is yes.
God Bless,
Hunter Burnett