With the
structure of
America’s
two-party
system, voters
only have a
choice between
two candidates
for President in
the general
election. In
many cases
voters see this
as a choice
between the
lesser of two
evils; they may
not like either
of the
candidates but
vote for the one
that they think
will do the
least amount of
damage.
This is
regrettable, and
it often happens
because the
process by which
the two
candidates are
chosen is
inadequate and
doesn’t
represent
voters’ actual
wishes. The
primary/caucus
system needs to
be modified so
that the
candidate who
receives a
political
party’s
nomination
actually has a
preponderance of
support among
the
rank-and-file
members of
that party. In
this and
subsequent
articles, I will
give some
suggestions as
to how the
nomination
system for
any
political party
can be rendered
fairer and more
representative
of voter
preferences.
One major issue
with the
nomination
system as it
stands today is
that primaries
and caucuses are
not held on the
same day in all
states. Consider
a situation
where there are
three states –
1, 2, and 3 –
and three
candidates – A,
B, and C. A and
B are more
sharply at odds
in their views
than A and C, so
if A is out of
the running, the
people who would
have voted for
him will tend to
support C rather
than B. The
first primary is
held in State 1,
where Candidate
A gets 20% of
the vote while B
and C each get
40%. A,
believing he has
little public
support and
relying on media
prognostications
of his failure,
drops out of the
race. The next
primary is held
in State 2,
where, if A had
stayed in the
race, he would
have gotten 40%
of the votes
while B would
have gotten 35%
and C would have
gotten 25%.
Instead, the
votes A would
have gotten are
divided between
B and C so in
the end B gets
40% of the vote
and C gets 60%.
Then in State 3,
where A’s voter
base is even
stronger, the
primary gives C
51% of the votes
while B gets 49%
of the votes. If
A had stayed in
the race, he
would have
gotten 60% of
the votes, B
would have
gotten 25%, and
C would have
gotten 15%. But,
since A dropped
out, C – having
had at least as
many votes as
any other
candidate in
each of the
three states –
wins the party’s
nomination.
For the sake of
simplicity,
assume that each
of the three
states has a
voting
population of
100. If all
three primaries
were held on the
same day, then A
would have
gotten 20 votes
from State 1, 40
votes from State
2, and 60 votes
from State 3 –
for a total of
120 votes. B
would have
gotten 40 votes
from State 1, 35
votes from State
2, and 25 votes
from State 3 –
for a total of
100 votes. C
would have
gotten 40 votes
from State 1, 25
votes from State
2, and 15 votes
from State 3 –
for a total of
80 votes. So A
has a plurality
of support among
the party’s
members and
should have been
the party’s
candidate in the
general
election. C
actually has the
least
popular support
among the three
candidates, but
holding the
primaries on
different days
enables him to
win the
nomination.
Holding all
states’
primaries on the
same day would
enable the
candidate who
has at least a
plurality of
support among
members of his
party to
actually win the
nomination.
Furthermore, it
would be fairer
to voters in
states where the
primaries are
currently held
later. If a
voter in State 2
or State 3
wished to vote
for Candidate A
in the situation
above, he
would not be
able to –
because of the
outcome of the
vote in State 1.
Even if A would
not have won
either State 2
or State 3
anyway, it is
still necessary
to permit his
supporters to
voice their
preference.
After all,
winning the
election is not
the sole reason
a candidate
might have for
running. Having
a substantial
number of votes
– but not a
plurality or a
majority – might
mean that a
candidate’s
platform is
sufficiently
popular for
other candidates
to begin paying
attention to it.
A winning
candidate might
still wish to
apply some of a
losing
candidate’s
ideas so as to
secure future
support from the
losing
candidate’s
constituency –
and also to more
accurately align
his actions with
the wishes of
all or most of
the people.
But in order for
election winners
to find out
which ideas
actually have a
lot of support
from minority
constituencies,
it is necessary
for those
minority
constituencies
to be able to
vote as they see
fit –
irrespective of
where they live.
In our
hypothetical
scenario, even
though A has
more support
than any other
candidate, the
actual vote
totals will not
represent this.
Candidate C
might think that
only 20 of 300
people actually
believe in A’s
platform;
therefore, C
might deem it
proper to ignore
this
comparatively
small
constituency and
focus on what he
believes to be
the wishes of
the other 280
voters. If this
were to happen,
I doubt that C
would have an
effective, just,
or popular
administration.
Rendering all
primaries
simultaneously
would not
necessarily
solve all the
problems with
today’s
nomination
system – but
would go a long
way toward doing
so.
Improving
the Presidential Nomination Process: Holding All Primaries on the Same
Day