Friday, June 20, 2008

Some Possible Solutions to the Messy Primary System

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, June 20, 2008


This election year has already prompted some criticism of the primary system. Both major parties have seen complaints about the results of the presidential primaries and the nominees who have emerged.

Some Republicans have lamented the process that gave them McCain as the nominee and eliminated others they saw as truer to conservative ideals. Later primaries were purely formality, constantly reminding McCain’s critics of the bleak choice they had left.

The Democratic race was more controversial and fraught with problems. Early on, the issue of Michigan and Florida primary dates became a source of concern. The Democratic National Committee spoke out against the legitimacy of these races, which had violated party rules and denied these states’ delegates seats at the convention. Later, as the potential nominee began to materialize, voters watched as a fight for those seats began to taint democracy. The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee eventually deliberated and decided on a formula to split the delegates to be seated among the candidates. That the seating of these delegations was determined by a committee and not by the voters cast a shadow of doubt on the outcome and undermined the democratic process. Damage to the party’s reputation and unity were inescapable.

Then came the issue of “superdelegates.” This informal term refers to delegates, primarily in the Democratic party who are seated at the convention without regard to primary or caucus results. These delegates are free to choose to support whichever candidate they wish, and could conceivably award the nomination to the candidate of their choosing. While often the gap between the Democratic frontrunners was too wide to be bridged by the introduction of superdelegates, at times when the race narrowed, the question of who would win their allegiance was of great concern. This factor further degrades the election process and by extension democracy.

There are other ills infecting the primary and election system. Campaign funding, “527” (described below) groups, the length of primary and general election seasons, and other issues create problems for presidential campaigns as well as other political races.

The financial requirements of running for office are a tangled web of corruption that ties the hands of candidates. It is nearly impossible for politicians to operate legitimately and ethically, and hope to win elections. During every election cycle there is talk of campaign financing reform and using public funding to break the stranglehold of this broken system. Unfortunately, campaign coffers grow substantially with each cycle and competition among candidates to outraise their opponents is spirals the situation out of control. There is little hope of true finance reform without dismantling the existing structure and safeguarding those who would ethically campaign from being buried by those tied to a corrupt financing structure.
During the 2004 presidential campaign the term “swiftboating” was coined to describe the way in which Senator John Kerry was slandered by a group called “Swift Veterans for Truth.” That election brought 527 organizations (tax-exempt groups designated by section 527 of the tax code) onto many people’s radar screens for the first time. 527 groups are not bound by the same regulations that the Federal Election Commission imposes on political campaigns. Therefore, they can raise much larger amounts of money and are freer to operate outside ethical bounds. The existence of 527s and the influence they have over the public arena, threaten democracy by acting as extensions to political campaigns while avoiding oversight.

The length of the current primary and general election seasons is a problem as well. Early primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states carry great weight and can affect the way voters cast their ballots in the later primary season. Public attention quickly shifts from hard issues and platforms to the electibility of a candidate. The horserace coverage in the mainstream media overshadows and minimizes domestic concerns and foreign policy perils. Candidates with dedication to solving national problems are often marginalized and largely overlooked. Voters are left uninformed about anything save the ranking of the proclaimed frontrunners and the speculation about their hopes in upcoming races. Predictions about primary results become self-fulfilling prophecies as voters react to questionable polls and fail to turn out for their candidates who “don’t stand a chance” of success.

These problems with the election system are further complicated by each state’s primary rules. The rules are complicated and varied. Some states allow voters to participate in primaries regardless of the party in which they are registered. Other states, such as New York, restrict a voter to his party affiliation when it comes to primary participation. Caucuses and primaries differ in process and the way delegates are seated for candidates. Often, voters who have registered and voted for years find themselves confused about the primary structure and the rules that apply.

It is obvious to those on either side of the political spectrum that change is needed in our electoral process. In order to achieve true democracy, I think a combination of reforms needs to be implemented. Federal standards should be applied to all state primaries to simplify the process and demystify the electorate. The length of the primary season and the general election need to be assessed. A single national primary election date would also end the debate over states moving up their primaries in order to appear relevant. Debates during the primary season should focus on issues of importance to the American citizenry and the media would be able to cover those issues instead of simply reporting win and loss results like sports scores. Controlling the influence of third party groups and political action committees as well as regulating campaign financing will go a long way toward cleaning up the dirty politicking so many of us are tired of.

These changes are possible but will be hard fought. The current perpetual campaign culture in government has turned the electoral process into a commercial venture. Corporate lobbyists, organizations, politicians, and states have been reaping huge financial benefits from the current system. There is little motivation from the top to bring about meaningful resolution of these issues. Well-intentioned candidates who seek to wage clean and ethical campaigns soon run up against the brick wall of status quo. If we seek democracy we must cry out from the grass roots that we will tolerate this broken process no more.

No comments: