The official start of the presidential nominating process is nearly upon us. Once the ballots are counted in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, we can expect to hear complaints about the workings of the selection system. These complaints have become a permanent feature of this quadrennial event. But, unfortunately, many of them are misplaced, leading pundits to offer incorrect assessments of the nominating process.
Since the current system has been in operation for two decades, we now have a good deal of information about it. This evidence can allow us to step back and offer a brief reassessment of presidential nominating system.
There are a great number of worries about this system, ranging from the front-loading of primaries to the rule governing campaign finance. But one of the most important of concerns involves the central role the public plays in the selection of presidential nominees. With the proliferation of primaries in the early 1970s, voters rather than party leaders became the kingmakers. This passing of the torch has been criticized frequently. Observers worry, among other things, that voters in primaries are unrepresentative of the rank and file, uninformed about the merits of candidates, and too heavily influenced by the actions of the news media.
In short, voters are not supposedly up to the task thrust upon them. If so, then one should indeed worry about this system. But are these evaluations correct?
To begin, recent evidence casts doubt on the claim that voters in primaries are unrepresentative of the rank and file. It turns out that participants are remarkably similar to voters in general elections. For instance, in Democratic primaries since 1976 voters have not been more ideologically extreme than their counterparts in the general election. Such findings indicate that the conventional wisdom is probably in error (or at minimum overstated).
While voters in primaries are not well-informed, it is far from clear that they are ”uninformed.” Historically, commentators, ranging from Tocqueville to Schumpeter, have raised doubts about the ability of the electorate to make informed choices. The problem is that scholars and pundits often compare voters to the ideal democratic citizen. If, in contrast, one compares the information of voters in primaries to that of voters in congressional elections, the former looks pretty good. This finding suggests we should be more cautious in offering such harsh assessments-unless we also want to reconsider the public`s role in congressional elections.
Finally, there is no doubt that the news media are central actors in the nominating process. But do they possess ”too much” influence? It is unclear. First, the fourth estate is crucial to all political processes, as shown by the flurry of activities that surround the presidential debates or the efforts of candidates to supply journalists with ”sound bites.” Second, even before the recent rise of primaries, scholars, such as Stanley Kelley of Princeton University, complained about the power of the news media, suggesting we need to reconsider such claims.
One may not find much solace in the above observations, pointing, instead, to recent nominees, such as Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis, concluding that party leaders (rather than voters) would have surely yielded better qualified candidates. This perception may be reinforced by thinking fondly of nominees like Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt.
Note, however, that every nominating system since the inception of the Constitution has come under attack by political observers of the time and often for similar reasons. These complaints come as no surprise when one considers that previous systems gave us such standouts as Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Herbert Hoover.
For example, the Congressional Caucus faced so much criticism for being
”unrepresentative” that it was abandoned by the 1820s. The so-called
”mixed” system, which existed from 1912 to 1968, was also viewed as unrepresentative by many. And this perception helped lead to its downfall.
The decisions of party leaders, too, have been attacked. In the 1890s, Lord Bryce wrote that the National Convention had fallen ”under the control of selfish intriguers and (destroyed) the chances of able and independent men.” Another observer reported that 20 percent of the delegates to a local convention in Illinois for the 1896 presidential election had a criminal record. Such claims hardly instill faith in the decision-making process of party leaders.
It seems that no matter who selects the nominees, there will be critics of them. Such criticism is healthy, since it points to potentially useful avenues of reform. But the problem is that we do not want to gloss over the flaws of the past decision-makers or overstate the weaknesses of the existing ones. Any arrangement (or set of decision-makers) is going to come under attack, since by definition its rules will aid some contenders and hurt others. Not surprisingly, it is the supporters of the latter who will often raise objections.
As the current presidential season unfolds, it would be wise to consider changes in the system. Having New Hampshire as the lead primary raises some questions, as does a process that allows candidates with small but intense followings a chance to win the nomination. It might pay to consider such things as a series of ”Super Tuesdays” or allowing voters to rank their preferences, as citizens can in Ireland or Australia, to measure more accurately the depth of a candidate`s support.
But whatever reforms one might support, we need to be cautious about our assessments of voters, in particular, and the system, in general, especially since a perfect process does not exist. And while the current arrangement has problems, at least it permits greater input by the electorate than any of its predecessors, which makes it more democratic-an asset not to be overlooked.
