Primary elections in the United States

The United States is one of few countries to select candidates through popular vote in a primary election system; most countries rely on party leaders to vet candidates, as was previously the case in the U.S.[1] In modern politics, primary elections have been described as a significant vehicle for taking decision-making from political insiders to the voters, though this is disputed by select political science research.[2] The selection of candidates for federal, state, and local general elections takes place in primary elections organized by the public administration for the general voting public to participate in for the purpose of nominating the respective parties' official candidates; state voters start the electoral process for governors and legislators through the primary process, as well as for many local officials from city councilors to county commissioners.[3] The candidate who moves from the primary to be successful in the general election takes public office.

Types of primaries

In the United States, other types can be differentiated:

Non-partisan and partisan primaries

Primaries can be used in nonpartisan elections to reduce the set of candidates that go on to the general election (qualifying primary). (In the U.S., many city, county and school board elections are non-partisan.) Generally, if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in the primary, he or she is automatically elected, without having to run again in the general election. If no candidate receives a majority, twice as many candidates pass the primary as can win in the general election, so a single seat election primary would allow the top two primary candidates to participate in the general election following.

As a result of a federal court decision in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa, the 2011 Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 351 implementing a closed primary system.[9]

Oregon was the first American state in which a binding primary election was conducted entirely via the internet. The election was held by the Independent Party of Oregon in July, 2010.[10]

Blanket

When a qualifying primary is applied to a partisan election, it becomes what is generally known as a blanket[11] or Louisiana primary: typically, if no candidate wins a majority in the primary, the two candidates receiving the highest pluralities, regardless of party affiliation, go on to a general election that is in effect a run-off. This often has the effect of eliminating minor parties from the general election, and frequently the general election becomes a single-party election. Unlike a plurality voting system, a run-off system meets the Condorcet loser criterion in that the candidate that ultimately wins would not have been beaten in a two-way race with every one of the other candidates.

Because many Washington residents were disappointed over the loss of their blanket primary, which the Washington State Grange helped institute in 1935, the Grange filed Initiative 872 in 2004 to establish a blanket primary for partisan races, thereby allowing voters to once again cross party lines in the primary election. The two candidates with the most votes then advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Supporters claimed it would bring back voter choice; opponents said it would exclude third parties and independents from general election ballots, could result in Democratic or Republican-only races in certain districts, and would in fact reduce voter choice. The initiative was put to a public vote in November 2004 and passed. On July 15, 2005, the initiative was found unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the Grange's appeal of the case in October 2007. In March 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Grange-sponsored Top 2 primary, citing a lack of compelling evidence to overturn the voter-approved initiative.[12]

In elections using voting systems where strategic nomination is a concern, primaries can be very important in preventing "clone" candidates that split their constituency's vote because of their similarities. Primaries allow political parties to select and unite behind one candidate. However, tactical voting is sometimes a concern in non-partisan primaries as members of the opposite party can vote for the weaker candidate in order to face an easier general election.

In California, under Proposition 14 (Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act), a voter-approved referendum, in all races except for that for U.S. President and county central committee offices, all candidates running in a primary election regardless of party will appear on a single primary election ballot and voters may vote for any candidate, with the top two vote-getters overall moving on to the general election regardless of party. The effect of this is that it will be possible for two Republicans or two Democrats to compete against each other in a general election if those candidates receive the most primary-election support.[13][14]

Presidential primaries

In the United States, Iowa and New Hampshire have drawn attention every four years because they hold the first caucus and primary election, respectively, and often give a candidate the momentum to win their party's nomination.

A criticism of the current presidential primary election schedule is that it gives undue weight to the few states with early primaries, as those states often build momentum for leading candidates and rule out trailing candidates long before the rest of the country has even had a chance to weigh in, leaving the last states with virtually no actual input on the process. The counterargument to this criticism, however, is that, by subjecting candidates to the scrutiny of a few early states, the parties can weed out candidates who are unfit for office.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) proposed a new schedule and a new rule set for the 2008 Presidential primary elections. Among the changes: the primary election cycle would start nearly a year earlier than in previous cycles, states from the West and the South would be included in the earlier part of the schedule, and candidates who run in primary elections not held in accordance with the DNC's proposed schedule (as the DNC does not have any direct control over each state's official election schedules) would be penalized by being stripped of delegates won in offending states. The New York Times called the move, "the biggest shift in the way Democrats have nominated their presidential candidates in 30 years."[15]

Of note regarding the DNC's proposed 2008 Presidential primary election schedule is that it contrasted with the Republican National Committee's (RNC) rules regarding Presidential primary elections. "No presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting may be held for the purpose of voting for a presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates or alternate delegates to the national convention, prior to the first Tuesday of February in the year in which the national convention is held."[16] In 2020, this date is February 4.

Candidates for U.S. President who seek their party's nomination participate in primary elections run by state governments, or caucuses run by the political parties. Unlike an election where the only participation is casting a ballot, a caucus is a gathering or "meeting of party members designed to select candidates and propose policies."[17] Both primaries and caucuses are used in the Presidential nomination process, beginning in January or February and culminating in the late-summer political party conventions. Candidates may earn convention delegates from each state primary or caucus. Sitting presidents generally do not face serious competition from their party.

Primary classifications

While it is clear that the closed/semi-closed/semi-open/open classification commonly used by scholars studying primary systems does not fully explain the highly nuanced differences seen from state to state, still, it is very useful and has real-world implications for the electorate, election officials, and the candidates themselves.

As far as the electorate is concerned, the extent of participation allowed to weak partisans and independents depends almost solely on which of the aforementioned categories best describes their state's primary system. Clearly, open and semi-open systems favor this type of voter, since they can choose which primary they vote in on a yearly basis under these models. In closed primary systems, true independents are, for all practical purposes, shut out of the process.

This classification further affects the relationship between primary elections and election commissioners and officials. The more open the system, the greater the chance of raiding, or voters voting in the other party's primary in hopes of getting a weaker opponent chosen to run against a strong candidate in the general election. Raiding has proven stressful to the relationships between political parties, who feel cheated by the system, and election officials, who try to make the system run as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect this classification system has on the primary process is its influence on the candidates themselves. Whether a system is open or closed dictates the way candidates run their campaigns. In a closed system, from the time a candidate qualifies to the day of the primary, he must cater to strong partisans, who tend to lean to the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. In the general election, on the other hand, the candidate must move more towards the center in hopes of capturing a plurality.

Daniel Hannan, a British politician and Member of the European Parliament, claimed, "Open primaries are the best idea in contemporary politics. They shift power from party hierarchs to voters, from Whips to backbenchers and from ministers to Parliament. They serve to make legislatures more diverse and legislators more independent."[18]

References

  1. ↑ Ginsberg, Benjamin (2011). We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. p. 349.
  2. ↑ Cohen, Marty. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2008.
  3. ↑ Bowman, Ann (2006). State and Local Government: The Essentials. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. pp. 75–77.
  4. ↑ "State Primary Election Types". NCSL. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  5. 1 2 Bowman, Ann (2012). State and Local Government: The Essentials. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. p. 77.
  6. ↑ Dye, Thomas R. (2009). Politics in States and Communities. New Jersey: Pearson Education. p. 152.
  7. ↑ "State Primary Election Types". NCSL. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 5 April 2016.
  8. ↑ (PDF) http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/HistoryofWashingtonStatePrimarySystems.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ↑ Idaho Voter's Guide (PDF) http://www.idahovotes.gov/VoterGuide/2012_Voter_Guide_English.pdf?hp. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. ↑ "E-votong? Not ready yet.". oregonlive.com. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  11. ↑ "Blanket Primary Law & Legal Definition". USLegal.com. Retrieved 2012-11-07.
  12. ↑ "WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY". 18 March 2008. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
  13. ↑ California Secretary of State
  14. ↑ McKinley, Jesse (June 9, 2010). "Calif. Voting Change Could Signal Big Political Shift". The New York Times.
  15. ↑ "Democrats Set Primary Calendar and Penalties", New York Times, August 20, 2006
  16. ↑ "GOP.com". Gop.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-30.
  17. ↑ Bardes, Barbara (2012). American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2011-12 Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. p. 300.
  18. ↑ "Do open primaries favour plutocrats and extremists?". London: Blogs.telegraph.co.uk. 2010-08-29. Retrieved 2010-10-31.

Bibliography

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.