You have probably seen any number of polls showing that most Americans do not support either candidate for President this year. These polls come from a variety of sources including Gallup, USA Today, and others, and show between 50% and 60% of voters do not want either candidate. Yet each party is rushing pell-mell to nominate its candidate despite each candidate’s feeble public support.
How, in a system that is supposedly governed by democratic principles and the will of the people, can this happen? In a country where a candidate of one of the two major parties will be elected President, how is it that the system we have can result in electing someone who the majority of voters do not support?
One answer lies with our system of nominating candidates through party primaries.
Consider these numbers:
Donald Trump won a record 56,260 votes or 51% of the Republican votes cast in the Iowa caucus. But according to reports from the Iowa Secretary of State, as of January 2, 2024, there were 594,533 active registered Republicans (those who voted in the 2020 election) of which only 18.5% participated in the caucuses (110,298). Trump’s 51% of the vote, as impressive as it appears, translates into only 9.46% of active Republicans in the state. So, less than 10% of the active Republican voters in Iowa have selected Trump as its candidate.
In the general elections between 2000 and 2020, 27% of registered voters turned out to vote in the primaries; the average turnout rate for general elections was slightly over 60%. Over half of those voting in general elections did not vote in primary elections. The 60% who voted missed their opportunity to participate in choosing the candidates for whom they could vote in the general election.
The point is that a small minority of party members can select who represents the party in the general election. The primary season is not over, but there is no reason based on history and current polls to believe that it will not be the same story in future Republican primaries. The likely result will be that a small minority of Republican voters will select Donald Trump as the party’s nominee.
And in the case of the Democrats, there is no choice at all. The only viable candidate appearing on any Democratic primary ballot will be the current president.[1]
Why is this happening? The major reasons:
- The two parties for decades were the “gatekeepers” with the fundamental purpose of finding candidates who are electable. National conventions of delegates elected by state parties met to hear and consider who should be their party’s candidate. With the advent of binding primaries in 1974, the parties could no longer fulfill their purpose of vetting candidates. If that were still the system in 2016, it is highly unlikely that the Republican party would have nominated Donald Trump. Who would have seen him as electable in 2016? Similarly, it is likely that the Democrats would have exerted enough pressure on Joe Biden to have caused him to pass on a second term in 2024 over concern about his age and electability.
- Competing effectively in 50+ primary (or caucus) elections requires money, and lots of it. It limits candidates to those who have personal wealth or can appeal to special interests or other donors who have very deep pockets. But most importantly, it effectively limits voter choice to the candidates of the two major parties. This is a primary (no pun intended) opportunity for money to have a huge influence on candidates.
- Voter turnout in primaries is small, contributing to the problem that a minority of the party can choose the candidate. Turnout is nothing close to a majority of registered party members. The Iowa caucus had less than 20% of active Republicans participating. This is in a state which flaunts the importance of its first in the nation contest.
What can be done?
- Return to nominees being nominated by conventions. This would reinvigorate the parties and their involvement in the nomination process and reinstate nominating candidates by knowledgeable and active party members, or
- Modify the system to allow the viable entry of additional parties into the system. Ranked choice voting is a possible means to accomplish this, or
- Move to open primaries and caucuses in which all voters can participate. Democrats and Republicans would vote in their primaries as they do now, and independents could vote in the primary of their choice. This would make it much more difficult for a small minority of either party to nominate the candidate and thereby control the party, and much more likely that a candidate is nominated who has much broader support among general election voters.
Although I believe 1) would elevate the quality of nominated candidates and reinvigorate the political parties, returning to this is highly unlikely and would be viewed by the public as an “undemocratic” return to smoke filled rooms and party bosses. Ranked choice voting is attractive as a means to offer more candidates to the voters, but the country is not yet ready for this, and it will be difficult as long as we have unfettered spending in political campaigns.
Party advocates (and I used to be one of those) will scream about this change because it dilutes the party’s “right” to choose its own candidates and undermines the party’s control of elections. The answer is that if a party can appeal to, say, only 30% of the voters, why should they have the power to exclude the voice of the other 70% from the nominating process?
Some jurisdictions do allow some version of this “open primary” as it is called: 33 have either an open or mixed primary/caucus, and 43 have closed primaries. [2] [3]
The results New Hampshire shows the benefits of an open primary:
- Total turnout in the Republican primary was about 300,000; total Republican registration as of 12/23 was 267,905. Turnout included an estimated 47% independents showing that independents participate in the primary.
- Exit polls suggest that 31% of those voting described themselves as moderate compared to 9% in Iowa’s close caucus.
- These numbers show a significant percentage of independents can and do participate in an open primary.
Moving to open primaries is the quickest and most effective way to open up the nominating process. It would neutralize the dominance of factions in the nominating process while offering the opportunity to the large number of voters who are not party members and in most states do not have a voice in the nomination process.
Thirty three of the 76 primaries and caucuses are open or mixed. It is time for more states to move from closed primaries and allow for all voters to have a voice in choosing what candidates are on the ballot.
[1] Except for New Hampshire where for political reasons he did not appear on that ballot.
[2]Open allows anyone to vote in the primary, Mixed allows change of registration on day of election, Closed allows only members of the party to vote.
[3] These numbers add to more than 50 due to some states having more than one primary/caucus and inclusion of American territories.