Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Gangale
Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, today called my attention to an article he published last month,
"The Case for a One-Person, One-Vote National Primary To Nominate Our Presidential Candidates in 2020." I just now wrote a response:
Following up the American Plan process with a national primary is an intriguing idea. For one thing, I certainly don't mind my idea being mentioned in the same breath with Woodrow Wilson's... that's not bad company! (It was Wilson who first proposed a national presidential primary.) If sold as a package deal, your idea simultaneously solves two rather opposite problems: the American Plan, while being a good process, is just complicated enough to make most people's eyes glaze over, which makes it a tough sell; the national primary, as a stand-alone solution, would be horrible, yet it is so simple that lots of people love it. It's a good marriage; each compensates for the other's weaknesses, and they combine their strengths.
One aspect that should not be glossed over, however, is that although the national presidential primary would probably have a large turnout, which would benefit primary races for other offices, turnout for the American Plan phase would likely be depressed because it would not allocate delegates bound to the presidential candidates (it is the national primary which would do this). The American Plan phase might be widely perceived as a nothing more than a series of "beauty contests," although in reality it would serve an important role as the winnowing process for the national primary. Moreover, I suspect that states would not be pleased at the expensive prospect of holding two presidential primaries rather than one (some states hold their Republican and Democratic primaries on separate days, but it's rare). It was for this reason that California moved its presidential primary back to its traditional date in early June, consolidated with the state's other primary races. To avoid this expense, I would anticipate what would occur is a reversal of the 20th century trend of more primaries and fewer caucuses, with the American Plan phase becoming increasingly a caucus-driven process. Growing up in California, which adopted the primary system a century ago as one of its Progressive Era reforms, I was averse to caucuses as weird, old fashioned, and less democratic, so a few months ago I probably would have disliked the prospect of the American Plan process comprising an increasing number of caucuses, but I have recently reassessed my position on caucuses. The argument in favor of caucuses is that the participants tend to be more invested in time and more politically tuned in than the average primary voter who just walks into the polling place and punches a card based on some broadcast political ads. I'd have to do the research, but I suspect that Donald Trump didn't do nearly as well in caucus states as in primary states because he had no organization, no "ground game;" the primary-driven process that has evolved to this day allowed him to get by with just an "air game." Also, I wonder whether some primary voters are victims of a false consciousness, believing that they can be casually irresponsible in voting for a candidate which, if they gave it some thought, they really would be horrified to see in the White House, but it doesn't matter very much since the next state on the primary schedule can vote differently, so they can lodge a protest vote. We may have taken that Progressive Era reform too far. So on that score also I like your proposal of the American Plan process followed by a national primary, in that it might "restore balance to the Force." The national primary would be the last chance for voters to come to their senses. Do we really want to do this? This is not an exercise. On my mark, rotate your key....
Warmest regards.
I'm Tom Gangale and I approved this message.
Thomas Gangale's Lies and Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment