• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Independent Voter News
  • Campaign Finance
  • Civic Ed
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Events
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Voting>
  3. primary voting>

More people deciding is bad for democracy, think tank argues

Geoff West
January 17, 2020
More people deciding is bad for democracy, think tank argues

The New Center suggests party leaders — not primary voters — should have the biggest role in picking nominees.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

What's one good way to fix dysfunction in American democracy? A centrist think tank has come up with a very counterintuitive answer:

Give the voters even less say over how their presidential candidates get nominated.

A white paper released this week by The New Center argues that the leaders of the political parties — not primary voters — should have the predominant voice in deciding which candidates best represent the ideals, norms and goals of the party.


Leaving the choice solely in the hands of primary voters, on the other hand, opens the possibility that "a single person can hijack, conquer, and reinvent an entire party image with far too much ease," the think tank concluded. "Like any other private brand, parties should be able to carefully manage their identities — and if voters no longer resonate with them, these Americans should launch their own political parties, movements, and groups."

The report was written by Laurin Schwab, a policy analyst for The New Center. The group was founded after the 2016 election by prominent centrist Democrat Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution and prominent centrist Republican Bill Kristol "to establish the intellectual basis for a viable political center in today's America."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The leaders of both parties had firm control over the nominating process until half a century ago, when the primary and caucus system we know today began taking hold and the candidates consistently turned out to be the people who did the best in those contests.

Republicans, though, continue to have rules giving party bosses muscle at a deadlocked convention. Democratic leaders started reasserting themselves in the 1980s with a system of superdelegates, elected and appointed officials not formally bound to any candidate at the conventions, but a backlash at their influence in 2016 prompted the party to severely limit their importance this year.

Ironically, the current nominating system that relies heavily on primary voters is strangely undemocratic because so few voters actually turnvout — so only a small minority of Americans ultimately decide which two people will have a realistic chance of getting elected president. In 2016, for instance, less than a third of eligible voters in America showed up during primary voting, the white paper notes, even though both the Democratic and Republican contests were highly competitive.

And efforts since the early 1970s to decrease the role of party leaders in deciding the best candidate has had "unintended consequences," which include opening the field to people who enter the race for attention but have little to no chance of winning, yet their presence encourages more political spending in the election while taking away airtime from legitimate candidates during debates.

"Easy access to the debate stage means candidates with no serious intentions can hack a free PR generator for epic personal gain," The New Center says. "There's a reason why little-known individuals run for president when they're confident they will lose: it pays."

Instead, it concludes, the parties "should be the ultimate bosses of their own events, proceedings, and brands, and they should feel empowered to boot out voices they admonish."

While the think tank advocates for empowering superdelegates in choosing party nominees, it also acknowledges the need for ensuring these power brokers fit neatly within the country's representative democracy.

"If the Democratic Party is to revive the superdelegates without peeving its anti-superdelegate camp, it should consider limiting superdelegate status to only those who are serving, or have served previously, in elected offices."

From Your Site Articles
  • Alaska's RCV and open primary plan take a step forward - The ... ›
  • Florida voters to decide on open-top-two primary structure - The ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Primary Elections Explained - YouTube ›
  • 2020 State Primary Election Dates ›
  • Democratic 'Superdelegates' Reforms Reduced Role In Presidential ... ›
  • Democratic National Convention: Reform Has Roots in 1968 | Time ›
primary voting

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Confirm that you are not a bot.
×
Follow

Support Democracy Journalism; Join The Fulcrum

The Fulcrum daily platform is where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk, and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives. Now more than ever our democracy needs a trustworthy outlet

Contribute
Contributors

Our shared humanity and collective responsibility

Jenn Hoos Rothberg

The conservative mind at 70

Michael Lucchese

Fulcrum Rewind: How to get along at Thanksgiving

Debilyn Molineaux
David L. Nevins

How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms

Margaret Mikulski

What if neither party can govern?

John Opdycke

The case for the 4th, from a part-time American

Flora Roy
latest News

Don’t soundproof your heart

Tim Shriver
46m

A new case for electoral reform

Reinhold Ernst
1h

Podcast: Dr. F Willis Johnson in rich conversation with Steve Lawler

Lennon Wesley III
21h

Ranked choice voting won election day 2023

Ashley Houghton
Deb Otis
21h

Could George Santos torch the House by vacating the Speaker

Kevin R. Kosar
21h

Slovakia’s election deep fakes show how AI could be a danger to U.S. elections

David Levine
Louis Savoia
28 November
Videos
Who is the new House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson?

Who is the new House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson?

Our Staff
Video: Jordan bully tactics backfire, provoke threats and harassment of fellow Republicans

Video: Jordan bully tactics backfire, provoke threats and harassment of fellow Republicans

Our Staff
Video Rewind: Reflection on Indigenous Peoples' Day with Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Video Rewind: Reflection on Indigenous Peoples' Day with Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Our Staff
Video: The power of young voices

Video: The power of young voices

Our Staff
Video: Expert baffled by Trump contradicting legal team

Video: Expert baffled by Trump contradicting legal team

Our Staff
Video: Do white leaders hinder black aspirations?

Video: Do white leaders hinder black aspirations?

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Dr. F Willis Johnson in rich conversation with Steve Lawler

Lennon Wesley III
21h

Podcast: Dr. F. Willis Johnson in a rich conversation with Patrick McNeal

Our Staff
14 November

Podcast: Better choices, better elections

Our Staff
23 October

Podcast: Are state legislators really accountable to their voters?

Our Staff
06 October
Recommended
Don’t soundproof your heart

Don’t soundproof your heart

Big Picture
Our shared humanity and collective responsibility

Our shared humanity and collective responsibility

Big Picture
A new case for electoral reform

A new case for electoral reform

Big Picture
Podcast: Dr. F Willis Johnson in rich conversation with Steve Lawler

Podcast: Dr. F Willis Johnson in rich conversation with Steve Lawler

Podcasts
Ranked choice voting won election day 2023

Ranked choice voting won election day 2023

Big Picture
Could George Santos torch the House by vacating the Speaker

Could George Santos torch the House by vacating the Speaker

Big Picture