Are primaries democratic? Should they be?

[Slander and/or Libel]

I've recently been discussing the structure of presidential primaries with some friends, and the shortcomings of the process. One friend keeps insisting that any reforms need necessarily to bend the process toward more democracy, and when I ask him to back up this assertion, he falls back more or less on a "democracy is always good and more of it is always better" argument.

So here's the ways I count that the (Democratic, leave aside the Republicans for now) primary process isn't Democratic:


1) Some of them are caucuses, which are actively antidemocratic in these ways:

   1a) Public balloting, meaning intimidation is a factor

   1b) Severe time commitment, disenfranchising people who can't afford to make it out
         to a high school gymnasium for a few hours on a weeknight

2) Some states vote late, meaning they aren't afforded the same breadth of choice of
    candidates as the early states, since some have dropped out by then

3) Some states vote early, meaning they aren't afforded the same breadth of information
    about which candidates might/will drop out, what scandals may break, etc.

4) When candidates drop out, their assigned delegates are often freed to vote as they wish,
    rather than being committed to vote in accordance with any voter preference

5) The structure of primaries from state to state varies considerably (open, closed,
    semi-open, etc.), as does ballot access

6) Turnout is generally abysmal, meaning the primary voting population may not be close
    to representative of any specific population

7) It's not exactly clear which population we should want the primary electorate to represent

So, I think point 1 is easy to fix.

Points 2 and 3 are harder, but (I'd argue) would be fixed by a national primary rather than the dragged out process we've evolved.

Point 4 would be addressed by ranked choice balloting that reallocated pledged delegates according to voters' subsequent choices once their top choice dropped out (though I think this alone would be a problem for early state voters, whose preferences may have shifted based on information that came out later though they couldn't modify their ballots).

Point 5 is addressable, but an extremely heavy lift, as it would require aligning laws and policies across every state (and also a decision about point 7, who the primaries are meant to represent).

Point 6 is probably where I'm going to always get hung up, because these things are almost always going to be decided by a committed 10-20% of the population. Point 7 gets a bit at whether that's good enough. Closed primary logic would dictate that it should be party members making this decision; open primary logic would dictate that all who want to vote in the primary should have a hand in the decision. The acceptability of such low turnout rates as representative will differ based on the logic used here.

My own view, then, is that certainly the current implementation of the presidential primaries is undemocratic, but also that the whole idea may be fundamentally irreconcilable with any notion of democracy as we reckon it. After all, these are "elections" not to send people to high office, but to dictate to a political party which candidate it must commit to back in a subsequent run for higher office.

As such, though superdelegates and "party elites" (whatever that happens to mean, it's usually curiously undefined) are lately decried, why doesn't it make sense for them to have a say in the nomination of their party? Those elites, for the most part, enjoy their status on the basis of elected office, so they're accountable to voters. They don't have preternatural decision-making skills, but they certainly may have a window into balancing constituencies that voters don't, or may not care about.

What say you, Atlas?

[StateBoiler]

So here's the ways I count that the (Democratic, leave aside the Republicans for now) primary process isn't Democratic:


1) Some of them are caucuses, which are actively antidemocratic in these ways:

   1a) Public balloting, meaning intimidation is a factor

   1b) Severe time commitment, disenfranchising people who can't afford to make it out
         to a high school gymnasium for a few hours on a weeknight

Does this make state party conventions undemocratic? How about the national Democratic Convention? Because all of these are likewise true for those events.

Should the State Party Chair be on a primary ballot? The National Committee members from a state? The approval of State Party Rules and Platform? Ditto all the National versions of these?

[Slander and/or Libel]

So here's the ways I count that the (Democratic, leave aside the Republicans for now) primary process isn't Democratic:


1) Some of them are caucuses, which are actively antidemocratic in these ways:

   1a) Public balloting, meaning intimidation is a factor

   1b) Severe time commitment, disenfranchising people who can't afford to make it out
         to a high school gymnasium for a few hours on a weeknight

Does this make state party conventions undemocratic? How about the national Democratic Convention? Because all of these are likewise true for those events.

Should the State Party Chair be on a primary ballot? The National Committee members from a state? The approval of State Party Rules and Platform? Ditto all the National versions of these?

I mean, potentially, but those party conventions don't really pretend at democracy, either. But I'm talking a little more about mundane intimidation, like wives afraid to vote differently from their husbands, neighbors worried what people will think of them, etc. Those concerns are likely lessened quite a bit by the time delegates are at the convention, and they're not among people they know, for the most part.

[European Lefty]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

[Slander and/or Libel]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

Do you mean that everybody should get to vote in every primary? That's kind of what I don't get about open primaries. Why does somebody with no commitment to the party deserve a binding vote on who the party is committed to run in the fall?

[European Lefty]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

Do you mean that everybody should get to vote in every primary? That's kind of what I don't get about open primaries. Why does somebody with no commitment to the party deserve a binding vote on who the party is committed to run in the fall?

If you have people who aren't Democrats running for the Democrat nomination, why not? I don't imagine many people vote in the opposite party's primary and it does allow everyobody a say. That way you're more likely to end up with a president people actually like because everybody has had a chance to select the best candidate from either side. And for legislative elections it also means that people in the Bronx who aren't registered Democrats or people in Wyoming who aren't registered Republicans get some say over who their representative is whichever level th elections is for, which wouldn't happen without a primary.

[StateBoiler]

1) Caucuses aren't, clearly, but those states could always switch to primaries
2/3) If all states vote at the same time, that wouldn't bea problem. It would require a change in the law but that shouldn't cause too many problems.
4) That one's trickier. You would have to reform it to completely remove deleates from the equation and make national popular vote the sole determiner, but I don't know how you would do that.
5) All primaries shoud be open to get the best expression of the people's will
6) There really isn't a lot anyone can do about that beyond what is generally being done to improve political engagement.
7) Party conventions should be open only party members and decide things like policy, basic direction and party rules. The process of electing a president ought to be for everybody affected.

One thing I will say is: what's the alternative? In the UK party members and party members only select the candidates. My home village is in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, and whoever the Conservative select always wins by a very wide margin. Therefore, the only people who have any meaningful say over who the MP is are members of the local Conservative Party. Under an open primary, everyone in the constituency would at least get a say on who the MP is, even if there was nothing they could do about the party. Primaries might not be perfect but they're better than the alternative.

Do you mean that everybody should get to vote in every primary? That's kind of what I don't get about open primaries. Why does somebody with no commitment to the party deserve a binding vote on who the party is committed to run in the fall?

If you have people who aren't Democrats running for the Democrat nomination, why not?

There's a damn good case for that shouldn't be allowed either.

[brucejoel99]

People evidently have a false notion that parties shouldn't be able to select their own leaders via whatever mechanism they see fit. The real problem, of course, is that our system is set up to only support the entrenched party duopoly.

[Lord Halifax]

The general public shouldn't be involved in candidate selection at all.

1) You should have to pay a membership fee to be a party member, not just register as a "Republican" or whatever. By all means offer discounts to students, poor people, veterans whatever, by you should have to a member.

2) Parties should organize their own candidate selection process without any interference from the states. The current system just makes some parties into semi-public institutions.

3) Everyone should have ballot access everywhere, switch to the UK system where you pay a deposit and lose it if you don't get a certain share of the vote, say 5%. It's not the government's business to decide who can and can't run for office.

The primary system has made it extremely expensive to run for office, and a bunch of low info voters who make up their mind based on ads and corporate media gets to decide rather than people who've actually spent time engaging and thinking about the issues.

[cris01us]

Great points all them.  It's the business of each party to decide how "democratic" they want the process to be for them.  As such it can be a reflection of how that particular party views democratic or republican forms of government.

[Motorcity]

1) Some of them are caucuses, which are actively antidemocratic in these ways:

   1a) Public balloting, meaning intimidation is a factor

   1b) Severe time commitment, disenfranchising people who can't afford to make it out
         to a high school gymnasium for a few hours on a weeknight

2) Some states vote late, meaning they aren't afforded the same breadth of choice of
    candidates as the early states, since some have dropped out by then

1. You are also forgetting public transportation. Small towns do not have buses. How does someone who live in public housing with no car get to the high school gymnasium?


2. Yeah, a big argument back in 2016 was that the primary was basically over by June yet the largest state had no impact.

[beesley]

All great points and I like your suggestions for solutions. To me it's just as much an issue that if the general public are expected to participate in primaries they have little say in the process as they don't elect party executives and obviously don't vote for state legislative candidates based on primary policy.


One thing about 3) - it's more likely to lead to wasted votes for candidates. It's wrong to assume, for example, all Buttigieg voters wanted Biden, as they may have wanted a younger candidate. But your ranked choice solution might work.

Leadership elections for parties in other countries tend to be all mail-in/online, and closed. I like that in the UK Labour Party there is a distinction between registering as a supporter of that party and a member, with both able to vote in leadership elections. Of course with primary elections the way they are in the US there would be few advantages to being a member.

[Kuumo]

Ideally, both parties should have open primaries with ranked choice voting in every contest and have the order of the contests change every election cycle. This would increase participation in primary elections and make it less likely for a candidate to win the nomination based off plurality support in the party or a couple of wins in unrepresentative early states.

[Frodo]

For all their faults, primaries are still more democratic than the party conventions they replaced.  Doesn't mean they can't be improved upon, of course. 

[kaikea1]

5 minute conversation with the average voter

[Motorcity]

Ideally, both parties should have open primaries with ranked choice voting in every contest and have the order of the contests change every election cycle. This would increase participation in primary elections and make it less likely for a candidate to win the nomination based off plurality support in the party or a couple of wins in unrepresentative early states.

I agree, but have all states vote on the same day. In this day and age, we aren't going to get another Jimmy Carter. A nobody who rents a motel room with pocket money and wins the state by going door to door.

[The Mikado]

Worth pointing out that the US Democratic Party (and, to a lesser extent, the US Republican Party, which still has several states select delegates through unelected state conventions rather than an electoral mechanism) are both vastly more democratic in candidate selection than almost any other political party anywhere. Even foreign political parties that have primaries (and there's not many of them) always restrict voting to members of the party, like the French Socialist Party does, and most foreign political parties have candidate selection mechanisms that are totally insider dominated, especially in parliamentary systems.

It is profoundly weird to me to see especially people from countries where leadership is chosen through votes by party leaders criticize American primaries for being insufficiently democratic when the Democratic and Republican Parties both give way more influence to the electorate to pick their candidates than almost any other party in the world. In most states, you don't even need to register with the party whose primary you want to vote for! I could vote in a Republican Presidential primary if I wanted to and influence a party I hate's choice for President! How insane is that.