Why the current primary system, imperfect as it is, is here to stay
With the 2010 midterms in the books, prospective candidates are already looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election. While President Obama will probably secure the Democratic nomination easily, Republicans must develop their campaigns in the coming months to navigate the political jungle that is the presidential nomination process.
The fun starts early. During the 2008 election cycle, candidates for both parties’ nominations were fundraising and campaigning as early as late 2006. The primaries themselves have steadily inched forward into early January, as states jockey with each other for prestige and influence. However, 2008’s protracted Democratic contest highlighted several flaws in the current nomination process, most notably the disproportionate weight given to early primaries and caucuses. Contingents from both major parties have proposed modifying the primary schedule to rectify this situation, but ultimately, opposition from existing party structures and from states will likely scuttle any major reform movement.
The Current Model
Traditionally, Iowa and New Hampshire have had outsized influence in the nomination contest because winners in these states, which hold their primary elections the earliest, gain valuable momentum in fundraising capacity and media visibility. Candidates with theretofore limited means or attention have taken advantage of these opportunities to sail to their party’s nomination. Richard Parker, a lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, explained that there are really three contests in the nomination process: a struggle for the support of elite party members, a fundraising battle, and finally, the actual vote tally. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama garnered immense support from liberal elites and from the grassroots before the Iowa caucus, which translated into huge fundraising opportunities after his victory there. Thomas Patterson, a professor of government at the Kennedy School, agreed. “The problem is that money is too big of a factor and early states have too big of an influence,” Patterson said.
In 2008, though, many states that do not typically influence the nomination process played a crucial role, because no clear front-runner emerged in either party following the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. As Timothy McCarthy, a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School said, “The good thing about the 2008 election cycle was that many states got to have a say.” McCarthy continued, “The candidates visited, debated, and campaigned heavily in states that had never gotten any attention.” The challenge for reformers is to remake the system so that this happens in every primary election season, not by chance but by design.
Regional Primaries
One of the most commonly offered solutions to improve this system is to institute a regional primary. One proposal made by the National Association of Secretaries of State in 1999 would have divided the nation into four regions and implemented a rotating system: Regions would hold primaries one each month, March through June, switching up the order with every presidential election cycle. Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) proposed a variation of the NASS plan in Congress in 2007, which would have allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to retain their first-in-the-nation status.
But Elaine Kamarck, a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School, explained in her book, Primary Politics: How Presidential Candidates Have Shaped the Modern Nominating System, that such proposals have garnered little support in recent years. “In contrast to voters, most of whom favor a national primary,” she wrote, “politicians tend to value the sequential nature of the nomination process.” Given that the candidates prefer the system the way it is, there is no significant impetus for change.
Prerequisites for Reform
If meaningful primary reform is to be adopted, the two parties and the 50 states must agree on a plan, which, given the current political climate, is highly unlikely. Enacting any changes, Kamarck explained, would require either congressional action or an agreement among all 50 states to hold their primaries and caucuses in some equitable order. “Neither of these things,” Kamarck said, “is likely to happen in the near future.”
The first possibility, congressional action, would require significant cooperation between leading Democrats and Republicans. Obviously, such cooperation has been a rarity in recent years. Legislators interested in reform are also wary of antagonizing party leaders, who have a stake in the current political system. Former Sen. Bill Brock (R-Tenn.) explained to the HPR why this process would be so difficult. “You really need to have leadership of the two parties sit in council with each other and say, ‘Okay, what is realistic on your side? How much of your political capital are you willing to spend on this?’” Brock continued, “Then they have to start marketing it to the political leadership, the top candidates, and the president. It’s going to take a lot and it’s going to take a sustained effort.”
The second option, cooperation between the states, may be even less likely. Historically, state parties have been given much flexibility in determining the date of their own primaries; as the controversy caused by the Michigan and Florida primaries in the 2008 Democratic contest showed, this can sometimes lead to major conflicts between states and between the political parties and states. Patterson explained, “It’s hard to get the party to agree on reform, but even then, since we have a federal system, party rules are not binding on states.”
Furthermore, parties must enforce guidelines on their own presidential candidates, who often maneuver in early primary states to gain strategic advantages. McCarthy explained why this is so hard to control. “Because the electoral system is so rife with the politics of self-interest, which manifests itself in the levels of candidates, parties, and state committees, you’re always going to have them fighting for what’s best for them, not what’s best for the country,” he said.
Inertia Takes Hold
Ultimately, the grim prospects for reform of the nation’s presidential nomination system are just a matter of inertia: Significant reforms are unlikely to pass in the near future because the current primary nomination system has been utilized by the political establishment for decades, and despite occasional calls for reform, there has not been a strong, sustained movement. Furthermore, friction between the two parties and state control over primaries are major impediments to reform, and therefore the 2012 nominees will likely be determined by the existing nomination process. Of course, this will hardly be the end of the world. But the 2008 election showed real problems with the way we nominate presidential candidates. There must be intense demand from both politicians and the population at large to initiate the reform process, and as the desire for change gradually increases, these reforms may become a reality.
Alexander Chen ’13 is a Staff Writer and Daniel Granoff ’14 is a Contributing Writer.
Photo Credit: Flickr (Eric Hersman)
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.