Evaluating the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current System for Selecting US Presidential Candidates

A strength of this system is the increased level of participation by voters.  Back in 1968, which was the last year of the previous system, only 11.7 million American voters (11% of the voting age population) took part in the nomination process.  By 1988, it became a staggering figure of 35 million (21% of the voting age population).  Moving on, another advantage is that there has been a significant increase in the choice of candidates.  Way back in 1968, there were only five presidential candidates to choose from.  Three Democrats and two Republicans.  However, moving forward to the year 2000, the candidate number had increased to 14.  12 Republicans and 2 Democrats.   The current process is opened up to outsiders, or politicians who don’t initially have a national reputation.  This would include people such as Jimmy Carter (1976), Bill Clinton (1992) and Howard Dean (2004).  Another strength is that the power of party bosses is taken away, thus lessening opportunities for corruption and making the process more democratic.  One last advantage of this system is that the tough race through the primaries is seen by some as an appropriately demanding test for a demanding job.  For instance, back in 1992, Senator Paul Tsongas, who had fought back from cancer to run for the presidency, was perceived to have had a lighter schedule than his rivals.  Many admired Tsongas as a person and liked his policies; however the primaries showed that he didn’t have the physical resilience to be president.   

A weakness of this system is that there is widespread apathy from voters and boredom.  Admittedly many people do take part in the nominating process than was the case 30 years ago.  But, the 36 million voters who participated in presidential primaries and caucuses in 2000 only represented a meagre 15% of the voting age population.  Another disadvantage is that primary voters are unrepresentative of the voting age population. Decreased turnout would not matter so much if the voters were a representative cross section of the voting age population.  But they are not.  Voters in the primaries are usually older, better educated, wealthier and more ideological than the voting age population as a whole.   Due to this, certain types of candidate, especially more ideological ones, usually do better in primaries than they should do.  For instance, in 1996, Pat Buchanan, who was a conservative Republican, won at least 20% of the vote in 26 primaries.  In six of those primaries his vote exceeded 30%.  Pat Buchanan would never reach anything like those percentages in a general election.  It is noted that some feel that the process seems far too long.  For example, Senator John F Kennedy, in 1960, announced his candidacy for the presidency 66 days before the first primary.  In preparing for the 2004 campaign, Senator John Kerry announced his candidacy for the presidency 423 days before the first primary!  The process is also very expensive, as candidates need to raise a large amount of funds, so they need to start their campaigns as early as possible.  Thus, campaigns are now longer and expensive.  Due to ‘front loading’, there is little time to raise money once the primaries have started.  It needs to be done before they begin so candidates start early.  In 2000, Al Gore raised $33.8 million and received another $15.3 million in matching funds.  George W Bush however raised a massive $91.3 million!  Many critics say that the media, such as television, dominate the process too much.  In the pre-reform era, decisions in regards to candidates were made by professional politicians.  They were the people who truly knew the candidates.  Back then, the role for the media was limited.  However these days, the voters rely on the media for information about the candidates.  Some feel the media is not suitable for this role and have become ‘king maker’, replacing the previous party bosses.  Loevy (1995) writes:  

“Our present nominating process has become a televised horse race focusing more on rival media consultants and advertising executives than on competing ideas, programmes, or even the character of the candidates… Popularity poles, slick spot ads, and television coverage of the early primaries offer episodes and spectacles and the average citizen is hard pressed to distinguish significance from entertainment.” 

Primaries can easily enter into bitter personal battles.  An example of this was in the 2000 Republican primaries.  A McCain television commercial accused George W Bush of lying, likening him to President Bill Clinton.  “That’s about as low as you can get” retorted Governor Bush.  Other examples of campaigns that have become bad tempered were those of George Bush senior and Pat Buchanan in 1992 and between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980.  It is however no surprise that the eventual nominees in both these contests went on to lose the general election. 

It seems voters have no confidence and time for disunited parties.  One last criticism is that there seems to be a lack of ‘peer review’, which eventually leads on to test presidential qualities.  What I mean here is that in the pre-reform era, candidates were largely selected by other professional politicians.  This is called ‘peer review’ which is the judgement of one’s colleagues or equals.  These politicians had a good idea as to what qualities were necessary in order to be a successful president.  Nowadays however, presidential candidates are chosen by ordinary voters who can’t be expected to know much about qualities which are needed to become president.  Due to this, primaries seem to test campaigning qualities rather than presidential qualities.  Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick spoke of how professional politicians are “uniquely qualified” to choose candidates because “they know the nature of the political job.”  Professor Austin Ranney states that parties are now “the prizes, not the judges” in the nomination process.    

To conclude, no one is saying that the reforms introduced after 1970 have been completely useless and that the US should return to the era before the reforms were adopted, when party bosses used to sit in smoke-filled rooms.  However, there are some suggestions for reforms which would improve the nomination process.  Mostly the reforms are to do with the timing of primaries and giving professional politicians more of a role in selecting candidates, without losing the democratic process.  Three possibilities for reforms are regional primaries, weighing votes for elected politicians at the National Party Convention and a pre-primary mini convention.  Regional primaries would divide the US in to four parts.  Northeast, south, Midwest and west.  Four days could be set aside for these regional primaries: the first Tuesdays of March, April, May and June.  The order would change every four years, with the region that went last in the previous election, going first in the next one.  A second reform would require the political parties to come up with a mechanism for weighing the votes of elected politicians.  This includes, members of Congress, state governors, city mayors and so on, at their National Party Conventions.  This would increase the role of ‘peer review’ and the roles of parties themselves.  The last reform is the most radical.  It would need an introduction by both parties of a pre-primary mini convention.  These would be held before the main primaries and would be much shorter and less expensive.  The main attendees would be all major elected office holders of the party.  The main aim of the mini convention would be to approve a list of up to three presidential candidates who would then run in the main primaries.