Evaluating the presidential candidate selection system

This is a reposting of a blog entry I put up in January of 2008. The basic framework still applies, and maybe as a revision exercise students could update the arguments with a more recent example or two!

I am sure that blog readers have been following the fascinating primary battle with interest. Here we take a look at the arguments for and against the primary system in light of evidence from the current race.

Presidential primaries: the case for
Primaries are democratic and post 1968 have opened up selection to party supporters rather than party elders behind closed doors, in smoke filled rooms, as they did with Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Iowa and New Hampshire have relatively small populations therefore this gives voters the opportunity to meet candidates face to face and indulge in some old fashioned “retail politics”, a process that would not be possible if one of the bigger states was first or if there was a clutch of states voting on the same day.

Primaries are expensive but when we bear in mind that McDonalds spend over $600m per year on advertising in the US then the figures seem much more reasonable.

Candidates deterred from entering the race due to inability to raise necessary funding most likely do not have what it takes. There is a strong argument to suggest that supporters are looking to back a winner, hence the flow of funding to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and now Hillary Clinton.

Money does not necessarily buy success anyway. Steve Forbes in 2000 spent $40m and failed to win a single state. Mitt Romney has spent a record breaking $85,000 a day on TV ads but made little impact in Iowa and New Hampshire 2008.

Primary campaigns prepare candidates for the general election battle. Bush in 2000 had to battle to withstand the McCain insurgency and this made him a better candidate. The Hillary v Obama battle should make the eventual Democrat nominee battle hardened.

Primaries can project unknown candidates onto the national stage. Jimmy Carter, it is said, started in Iowa with just a suitcase. Research suggests Mario Cuomo not Bill Clinton would have been chosen in 1992 had the Democratic hierarchy been allowed to choose. Mike Huckabee in 2008 is another good example.

Complaints about low turnout are exaggerated. The Republican primary in California in 2004 attracted a 40% vote. Turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire broke records in 2008, with the latter attracting over 60% of registered voters.

Presidential primaries: the case against
Primary voters are not representative of the voting population and candidates are forced to court polar opposites of the political spectrum and this may harm their attempt to attract centrist voters post convention, e.g. Democrats in 2008 all focused on health care. Might this cause a backlash in the summer?

The need to campaign for the primaries makes the race for the presidency into a marathon, thus inducing voter fatigue and depressing voter turnout. John McCain announced 2008 candidacy shortly after 2006 Midterms!

Early contests are unrepresentative. Iowa and NH are over 95%, versus approx 2/3 for the rest of the population. Both states are rural, conservative, and above average wealth. Therefore the concerns of voters in these states is out of alignment with the rest if the union, e.g. Iowa’s obsession with ethanol subsidies!

Iowa is no reliable indicator of who will secure the presidency, e.g. Bush defeated Reagan in 1980.

Contests can be bitter and divisive, e.g. McCain v. Bush 2000. Hardly the best springboard for a successful GE campaign.

Many apparently well qualified candidates drop out due to their inability to raise pots of cash, e.g. Libby Dole in October 1999.

Money. Primaries are enormously expensive. The need to campaign early, criss-crossing the US, hire campaign teams, and run expensive adverts necessitates huge funds. Clinton and Obama up to June 2007 have raised over $120million between them – a full 15 months before the GE.

Turnout rates are low. The Democrat primary in Connecticut in 2004 attracted just 5% of voters.