Closing Primaries: How the Democrats Can Attain Historic Losses
There I was, battling Twitter trolls like a modern-day Don Quixote, and making almost as much progress against my foes as he. The great thing about tilting at windmills, in our age, is that you can do it from the comfort of your couch after putting the babies to bed. Anyway, amidst my trials, I came across an interesting tweet:
Me:
Okay, ending Caucuses seems like a great idea for exactly the reason cited. This is a terrible system that is basically guaranteed to disenfranchise people who don’t have the time, the access, or the physical capacity to participate. Maybe in days of yore, when there were states with basically 42 landowning white Christian men who knew what was best for everybody and made all the decisions about how best to keep undesirables in their place… maybe Caucuses made sense. Maybe.
But the list as a whole reads more like a rant against Bernie Sanders. I mean, let’s be honest, here. What the heck is this income taxes thing with respect to primary candidates, unless it’s an anti-Bernie jab (on account of he released a single year of his taxes during the 2016 election)? There are a trillion things more important than a candidate’s tax history (okay, not a trillion, but a lot).
Actually, (in spite of the reason cited for ending Caucuses) the list reads, item-by-item, like a “How to Preemptively Stymie Another Bernie Sanders.” And this should be concerning. Not because you should like Bernie. I don’t care whether you like Bernie. You do you.
But Closed Primaries, Superdelegates, and the rest comprise another list of “How to Make the Democratic Party Irrelevant.” Let’s be pragmatic, here. Pew Research conducted a study that showed about half of millennials consider themselves Independent, but that they mostly still support Democrats. This is an historically low rate of registration. And these people aren’t going to register D in large numbers for the sake of suffrage.
That means that the up-and-coming Democratic voting base is increasingly not registered with the party. Therefore, the Democrats need to do everything they can to select candidates that excite this group or risk competing with Republicans on their own turf: the increasingly old people demographic.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with old people. I hope to be one myself, some day. Sitting out on the porch, sipping iced tea, wearing a dapper sweater-vest, telling the youths about life before the internets… Golden. But this can’t be the only demographic used to select candidates. If the Democrats exclude younger voters from participating in their primaries, the candidates they put forward in the general elections are going to be selected without regard to the issues that motivate younger people and turn out the vote when the Big One comes along.
“But what if The Left starts voting in our primaries?” Hold on, now. Is there a big voting block to the Left of the Democrats that’s going to swing a primary? Okay, yeah. Again, young people (per the Pew study, above). But think of it from another angle: Where should these people vote? In what primary? If not the Democrats, why should they be expected to vote Democrat in the general election? Because the Republican candidate is worse?
Okay… actually… that’s a pretty good argument. But it isn’t an especially motivational message: Vote Democrat; We’re Less-Bad Than the Republicans. That’s not how you get out the vote. It’s certainly not how you get out the vote for the Democratic candidate.
Don’t misunderstand: This isn’t about purity! That’s the error the pundits are making — and it’s turning people off because it was never about that for them, and they think the Democrats are out of touch. Including the concerns of various marginalized groups — ethnic minorities, the working class (white or not, frankly), the disabled community, Muslims, women, the poor, LGBTQ+ individuals, NDN nations, and a host of others — without being exclusionary is coalition-building, not some abstract sense of purity. “If you concern yourself with our issues, we’ll concern ourselves with yours.”
Now, if the Democrats don’t like the idea of a coalition based on a platform of these groups’ interests, or if you’re willing to throw them under the bus in order to spite the Left, that’s cool. But, again, this means the Democrats are fighting for the Republican base. Some Democrat leaders know this. Some of them inexplicably like this:
“But what if Republican-leaning people start voting in our primaries?” This kind of strategic voting happens. But the response can’t be to marginalize entire demographics in order to avoid it. “We mustn’t besmirch the sanctity of the institution for the sake of people who can’t be bothered to jump this tiny hurdle.” Sound familiar? Fear of strategic voting as motivation for Closed Primaries is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
No point getting into the 2016 irregularities that leveraged the Closed Primary system by purging voters. That’s too specific, and this isn’t about Bernie or any specific election. But it’s worth noting that Closed Primaries are a tempting lever for people in power. Whereas significant strategic Republican voting requires grassroots organization, screwing with voting access is something a handful of people can accomplish — possibly legally if the rules give them enough loopholes.
This is a good segue into everybody’s favorite caped crusader: The Superdelegate.
Superdelegates are intended to keep extremist, unelectable candidates off the ticket. That’s the theory. And, in theory, theory is the same as practice. But not in practice. In practice, at best, Superdelegates are just individuals with a lot more power than us putting their [very heavy] fingers on the scale, and at worst, they’re individuals with a lot more power than us putting their [very heavy] fingers on the scale.
“Why not?” one asks. “Why shouldn’t there be a small group of people with extra power deciding on the future of the party?” Actually, in principle, I’m amenable to this point. Why not, indeed? Let the parties pick their candidates however they choose. For instance, if the Republicans wanted to end their primary system and just let the Koch brothers choose their candidate, that would be an easier and less costly method. And perfectly valid, IMO.
But the U.S. has only two viable parties. If you vote for a third party, your candidate will not win the election. Note: this is not an argument against voting third party. But it’s true. Moreover, the winner-take-all system entrenches them as the only two viable parties. It is HARD for a third party to make gains, even in down-ballot elections. Therefore, by definition, a party that gives a few influential people extra power in selecting a candidate makes the whole system oligarchical.
Whereas they are ostensibly intended to tip the scales when primaries seem to be favoring an unelectable candidate, they actually undermine the perception that voting in the primary is impactful. In 2016 Superdelegates influenced voting numbers by announcing their intentions ahead of time, and even overturned the popular vote and won states for the other candidate. To reiterate: forget about Bernie and Hillary. How much did your primary vote matter?
A person would have to have overwhelming support in order to beat the establishment candidate. Now, if you still like it, cool. If you foresee yourself always in line with the elites, this will never come back to bite you… in the primaries.
But the reality is, although Superdelegates want to win, they have other incentives pulling them in one direction or another, just like you or me. We can label the candidate they select as “the electable one” but there’s no reason to think they’re better at choosing a winner than the average voter. Why should they have more incentive to support the electable candidate than you or I? No, this is a power grab. There’s no other way to classify this system.
What would an actual method of choosing a winning candidate look like? We’ll ignore, here, specific policies or coalitions. How does a party choose a winner? What if the Democratic Party threw caution to the wind, put its blinders on, and were dead-set on winning?
Because of the winner-take-all (except for Maine) electoral college system used in the general election, swing states would have disproportionately high representation. And they would have open primaries. After all, those are the most crucial states. “Safe” states, like Massachusetts and California, with overwhelming influence under the present system, would be marginalized.
Republicans might vote strategically, of course. That said, if they’re actually significant enough to tip the primary, you’ve probably got a pretty strong pool. It isn’t ironclad. But it’s a heckuvalot more effective to overweight the deciding votes in the general election than the current system that supports Massachusetts voters (like me) and a few party mucky-mucks.
No, the ability to win is tempered, under the present system, by the need for certain people to have power. That’s what Superdelegates are for. They may say otherwise — some of them may even believe otherwise, themselves. But the system is designed to retain the present power structure.
As for Democrats-only running? That’s strictly targeted at Bernie. He wasn’t (isn’t) a Democrat, and it’s a bit of pettiness. Whatever. More concerning, though, this is a move that limits the field of candidates. A Leftist candidate is only a danger to the cohesion of the party if the Democrats are too far Right for the comfort of their base.
Again, this comes back to the lack of viable third parties in the U.S. It’s actually a way to ensure a Democratic split in the general election. Even when Leftist candidates don’t win the primaries, they pull their opponents Left.
“They should just join the party. What’s the big deal?” I don’t know. I don’t care. Ask them. But it doesn’t really matter, does it? If they don’t join the party two years before the election, thereby excluding them from the possibility of running, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. And for what gain? Making pleasing-sounding rules that don’t actually serve anyone is how you build an ineffective and oppressive system.
Okay. Conclusion-time. This all may sound self-serving from someone for whom Bernie was a compromise candidate. I would very much like to see the country move Left. That said, doubling down on the Democratic Primary system as a means of securing future elections is disingenuous at best. Whether Bernie would’ve won the general election or not, whether he would’ve won the primary or not (without the aforementioned influence)… NOT THE POINT!
The current primary system is a scam: closed primaries in twelve states, Superdelegates, etc. Your influence is mitigated, and you’d better hope your views consistently fall in line with the movers-and-shakers in the party, or you will get burned. The impact on you, personally, aside, it’s hurting the party and the country. A lot of people already feel burned by it, and that can’t help Democratic voter turnout. #DemExit. Pundits can say, “good riddance,” but we all know how that works out.
