Primaries vs smoke-filled rooms

[Gatsby]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how the modern primary system is one of the main causes of polarization in America today, and it hasn't even produced an obviously-better crop of candidates than the old "smoke-filled room" system (where the party just handpicked their candidates and told the voters who the nominee was).

I think the biggest objection is that the smoke-filled room system was less democratic than the modern primary system...but I'm not sure even *that* holds up to scrutiny. We have gotten ourselves into a situation where there are only 97 swing House districts (meaning they are between R+5 and D+5), and only 14 swing Senate states. The rest are totally non-competitive. Aside from rare instances where the in-party forfeits the seat by nominating a criminal or a nutcase, the outcome of all the other congressional seats is predetermined. If we consider the more democratic system to be the one that provides an outcome that better represents voter sentiment, then the smoke-filled room would seem to be the better approach.

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting. Let's say that a party drops the ball and the voters nominate a bad candidate for a Senate seat, who loses the election badly. In a healthy system, they would learn their lesson and nominate someone better next time. But the primary system doesn't allow for that. If they lose enough elections in a row, the voters will simply come to associate the party with those unpopular candidates, stop identifying as party members, and stop voting in the primaries. This leaves only the true ideological believers to vote in the primaries, who are even *less* in touch with what the voters want than before.

I think our parties (and our democracy) would be better served if one or both of them unilaterally decided to abandon the primary system for congressional races, and go back to the smoke-filled room system...at least for the districts/states where they normally lose. Obviously the primary system is not working for them or for the voters. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

 

[HonestJoe]

I do agree that primaries are flawed, but they're both a cause and a symptom within the embedded political system in the US.

In theory, they make a little more sense in the effective two party system in the US, since it give opportunity for non-mainstream candidates to be considered, but it's also a major aspect of maintaining that two party system, especially given that the States typically only fund the primary processes for the Democrats and Republicans. This gives their candidates a whole load of extra media coverage. If they dropped the primaries, their candidates would have to face third party or independent candidates from a more equal starting point, so they're never going to agree to that.

There is plenty wrong with the US political system (just like everywhere else of course), and this is just one part of it, but the core issue is that all the problems are interrelated and knitted together so addressing any one part in isolation is all but impossible. I'd suggest you need to open with what you're ultimately seeking to achieve overall to establish a better plan for unknotting the established system.

 

[NatMorton]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how the modern primary system is one of the main causes of polarization in America today, and it hasn't even produced an obviously-better crop of candidates than the old "smoke-filled room" system (where the party just handpicked their candidates and told the voters who the nominee was).

I think the biggest objection is that the smoke-filled room system was less democratic than the modern primary system...but I'm not sure even *that* holds up to scrutiny. We have gotten ourselves into a situation where there are only 97 swing House districts (meaning they are between R+5 and D+5), and only 14 swing Senate states. The rest are totally non-competitive. Aside from rare instances where the in-party forfeits the seat by nominating a criminal or a nutcase, the outcome of all the other congressional seats is predetermined. If we consider the more democratic system to be the one that provides an outcome that better represents voter sentiment, then the smoke-filled room would seem to be the better approach.

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting. Let's say that a party drops the ball and the voters nominate a bad candidate for a Senate seat, who loses the election badly. In a healthy system, they would learn their lesson and nominate someone better next time. But the primary system doesn't allow for that. If they lose enough elections in a row, the voters will simply come to associate the party with those unpopular candidates, stop identifying as party members, and stop voting in the primaries. This leaves only the true ideological believers to vote in the primaries, who are even *less* in touch with what the voters want than before.

I think our parties (and our democracy) would be better served if one or both of them unilaterally decided to abandon the primary system for congressional races, and go back to the smoke-filled room system...at least for the districts/states where they normally lose. Obviously the primary system is not working for them or for the voters. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

One can fairly criticize the quality of candidates coming out of the primary system over the last few cycles and the current polarization, but there's another way to look at it: it's an accurate reflection of the voting public. And if it is, who are any of us to say we should have something different?

I'd also challenge your assertion that the primary system is self-perpetuating. While Trump may control the GOP today, he certainly didn't in the run up to the 2016 election. At the time, the GOP leadership was desperate to find another candidate, certain that Trump as their nominee would mean a Clinton victory. GOP voters felt differently in the spring, and by a razor's edge, voters nationally felt the same way in the general election.

 

[WorldWatcher]

One can fairly criticize the quality of candidates coming out of the primary system over the last few cycles and the current polarization, but there's another way to look at it: it's an accurate reflection of the voting public. And if it is, who are any of us to say we should have something different?

I disagree with the idea that it is an accurate reflection nof the voting public. Why?

It presents the choices that the voting public has to choose, but not necessarily the accurate views of the voting public.

Again... Why?

Because we tend to think in binary terms - true/false, yes/no, one/zero. But the reality is that the voting public isn't a binary DEM/GOP. People actually exist in a spectrum. For example you might have hard core RWNJ's and LWNJs. those would total about 25% each. that leaves about 50% in the middle which within that spectrum have those that are are more right wing and those more left wing.

The problem is with the primary system is it tends to bring out the LWNJs or RWNJs that vote heavily in the primary. The middle voters both in terms of ideology and in terms of motivation to vote are then under represenated in the primary. This means that the LWNJ/RWNJ that appeals to more nut job voters appears on the primary ballot. This pulls the DEM nominee to be MORE left than a reflection of the general public and the GOP nominee to be MORE right than a reflectio of the general public. That means come actual election the general public is presented with - in reality - the two choices from the major parties that went RW/LW nut job in the primaries and then maybe - maybe - tried to move to the middle for the general election.

I posit that it's not so much the general election system that is broken, it's the way we run primaries and how they actually limit the choices presented to the voter in the general election.

WW

 

[NatMorton]

I disagree with the idea that it is an accurate reflection nof the voting public. Why?

It presents the choices that the voting public has to choose, but not necessarily the accurate views of the voting public.

Again... Why?

Because we tend to think in binary terms - true/false, yes/no, one/zero. But the reality is that the voting public isn't a binary DEM/GOP. People actually exist in a spectrum. For example you might have hard core RWNJ's and LWNJs. those would total about 25% each. that leaves about 50% in the middle which within that spectrum have those that are are more right wing and those more left wing.

The problem is with the primary system is it tends to bring out the LWNJs or RWNJs that vote heavily in the primary. The middle voters both in terms of ideology and in terms of motivation to vote are then under represenated in the primary. This means that the LWNJ/RWNJ that appeals to more nut job voters appears on the primary ballot. This pulls the DEM nominee to be MORE left than a reflection of the general public and the GOP nominee to be MORE right than a reflectio of the general public. That means come actual election the general public is presented with - in reality - the two choices from the major parties that went RW/LW nut job in the primaries and then maybe - maybe - tried to move to the middle for the general election.

I posit that it's not so much the general election system that is broken, it's the way we run primaries and how they actually limit the choices presented to the voter in the general election.

WW

Sorry, disagree. The voting public -- and by this I mean the people who make an effort to vote -- are usually given a wide field of presidential candidates from the party not in power. In 2024, there were 13 candidates for the GOP nomination. in 2020, there were 20 candidates for the Democratic nomination. in 2016, there were 17 candidates for the GOP nomination.

We had choices.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, disagree. The voting public -- and by this I mean the people who make an effort to vote -- are usually given a wide field of presidential candidates from the party not in power. In 2024, there were 13 candidates for the GOP nomination. in 2020, there were 20 candidates for the Democratic nomination. in 2016, there were 17 candidates for the GOP nomination.

We had choices.

My comments were about primaries impacting elections in general not just presidential.

And my comments apply to your example anyway, the weren’t about the number of candidates in the primary. They were about how primaries move the general election candidates farther left/right for the general.

Of course we had choices. Primaries serve to funnel and limit the choices.

WW

 

[Gatsby]

One can fairly criticize the quality of candidates coming out of the primary system over the last few cycles and the current polarization, but there's another way to look at it: it's an accurate reflection of the voting public. And if it is, who are any of us to say we should have something different?

Generally speaking, only partisan Democrats vote in Democratic primaries and only partisan Republicans vote in Republican primaries. (I know the laws vary among states about open-vs-closed primaries, but in general, only the most committed partisans actually participate.) I think we can say that Democratic primaries are an accurate reflection of the people who vote in Democratic primaries, and Republican primaries are an accurate reflection of the people who vote in Republican primaries...but that this leads to suboptimal general election outcomes that do not accurately reflect what the median voter actually wants (which should be what we are really concerned about).

For example, if we consider a Senate race in a deep blue state (D+20), everyone already knows ahead of time which party will win. That means neither party has any real incentive to field a good candidate. Democrats can nominate practically anyone they want and still win, and Republicans can get sucked into a purity spiral where they nominate someone totally out of touch with what their state wants. The person who wins the Democratic primary is basically guaranteed to win the general election, even though very few voters actually voted for them in the primary. A more accurate reflection of the voting public would feature competitive general elections between two qualified candidates about equidistant from the median voter of their state...no matter how liberal or conservative the state is.

I'd also challenge your assertion that the primary system is self-perpetuating. While Trump may control the GOP today, he certainly didn't in the run up to the 2016 election. At the time, the GOP leadership was desperate to find another candidate, certain that Trump as their nominee would mean a Clinton victory. GOP voters felt differently in the spring, and by a razor's edge, voters nationally felt the same way in the general election.

I think the problem arises down-ballot rather than at the presidential level. If, say, Republicans nominate a total kook for governor of a competitive swing state and he loses by 10 points, they'll *probably* correct it next time. But if they don't, and they nominate the same kook again who loses by 10 points again, then they have a problem on their hands: Voters in their state now associate their party with the kook. And so the primary electorate next time around will be smaller, more ideological, and more kook-friendly. This creates a vicious cycle, where a formerly competitive swing state ceases to be competitive.

 

[joluoto]

I dunno. FPTP is a bitch of a system anyways, since whether it's a Primary or a actual election, there can be a 49% minority that is completely silenced.

But if you can't get rid of the FPTP curse, maybe Open Primaries are the way to go? Ranked choice voting could also perhaps make sure a candidate alot of people hate isn't voted in by a minority. But all in all the American system itself is the problem. It has created a monster with only two parties, which has led to a simplified political spectrum where there is only one version of right and one version of left allowed. And no, third parties can't compete. Honestly I think FPTP need to go, and there is no other fix.

 

[Gatsby]

Here is what I proposed a few months back, as my preferred approach to improving candidate quality and running a viable 50-state strategy, by bringing back the "smoke-filled rooms" where they are needed. It's written from the perspective of the Democratic Party, but the mirror image for the Republican Party would be just as effective IMO:

DEMOCRATIC RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE:

• For each of the 585 Governor, Senate, or House seats, find the top 20% of candidates who most outperformed the fundamentals of their state or district in the last election (i.e. which candidates ran ahead of the PVI of their state/district). These might be blue state candidates who won in epic blowouts, swing state candidates who won by a respectable amount, or red state candidates who lost but came close.
• These former candidates are the new Democratic Recruitment Committee, because they have proven that they can do better than the national party. This also avoids messy fights over the party's ideological direction: Let the objective data speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may.

PRIMARIES AND SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS, FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND GUBERNATORIAL RACES:

• For blue states and districts (D+5 or more) which are currently represented by a Democrat: Continue having primaries like before. No changes are needed.
• For red states and districts (R+5 or more): "Smoke-filled room." The Democratic Recruitment Committee will find a viable Democratic nominee and tell the voters who their candidate is. There will be no primary, since Democratic voters have proven incapable of picking electable candidates on their own.
• For swing states and districts (R+5 to D+5), or blue states/districts held by a Republican: Hybrid approach. The Democratic Recruitment Committee will find a viable candidate and strongly support them in the primary as the party's official preferred nominee, but also allow primary opposition and ultimately leave it up to the voters.

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY:

• The Democratic Recruitment Committee shall vet all presidential candidates who want to run in a Democratic primary. In addition to the normal constitutional requirements, each candidate must:
  • Be under 70 on Inauguration Day. (If it's a president seeking reelection, under 74 on Inauguration Day.)
  • Have won a statewide general election as Senator, Governor, or President in the last 10 years. (Or in the last 20 years, if they've served as VP since then.)
  • Outperformed the PVI fundamentals of their state/district in their last election, if they were a Senator or Governor.
  • Not previously lost a general presidential election.
  • Have been elected as a Democrat and currently identify as a Democrat.
• If there are more than 6 presidential candidates who meet these criteria, only the 6 who outperformed the PVI fundamentals of their state/district by the biggest margin will be considered primary candidates.
• Let the Democratic primary voters pick from among those 6 presidential candidates.

 

[aociswundumho]

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting.

All government is like that. Consider that the educrats and teachers operating a failing government-run school will most likely be rewarded with an even bigger budget. Or take public transit - when mismanagement drives away riders, the response is usually to pour in more subsidies instead of fixing the system. One of the unsolvable problems of having the state do anything is that the incentives are all backwards.

I don't want to hijack your thread, since it's about the primary system and not the government machine in general, I just wanted to point out that even if you come up with the perfect system to pick candidates, the results are still going to suck.

 

[Perotista]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how the modern primary system is one of the main causes of polarization in America today, and it hasn't even produced an obviously-better crop of candidates than the old "smoke-filled room" system (where the party just handpicked their candidates and told the voters who the nominee was).

I think the biggest objection is that the smoke-filled room system was less democratic than the modern primary system...but I'm not sure even *that* holds up to scrutiny. We have gotten ourselves into a situation where there are only 97 swing House districts (meaning they are between R+5 and D+5), and only 14 swing Senate states. The rest are totally non-competitive. Aside from rare instances where the in-party forfeits the seat by nominating a criminal or a nutcase, the outcome of all the other congressional seats is predetermined. If we consider the more democratic system to be the one that provides an outcome that better represents voter sentiment, then the smoke-filled room would seem to be the better approach.

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting. Let's say that a party drops the ball and the voters nominate a bad candidate for a Senate seat, who loses the election badly. In a healthy system, they would learn their lesson and nominate someone better next time. But the primary system doesn't allow for that. If they lose enough elections in a row, the voters will simply come to associate the party with those unpopular candidates, stop identifying as party members, and stop voting in the primaries. This leaves only the true ideological believers to vote in the primaries, who are even *less* in touch with what the voters want than before.

I think our parties (and our democracy) would be better served if one or both of them unilaterally decided to abandon the primary system for congressional races, and go back to the smoke-filled room system...at least for the districts/states where they normally lose. Obviously the primary system is not working for them or for the voters. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

Interesting, we began our modern primary system in 1976. Prior to that there were anywhere from 10-14 primaries depending on the year with some of those being non-binding. Party leaders from each state got together and decided who their state delegates would back for the nomination. Under that old system came FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon with the new primary system producing Carter and the rest of the presidents. Some of the presidents and some of the candidates who opposed them wouldn’t have received the nomination from their party under the old system.

Does the modern primary system help promote today’s divisiveness? Maybe, I’m not sure. Perhaps what has is how both major parties evolved over the years. There was a time when I was young when both major parties had their liberal, conservative and moderate wings. The democrats their solid conservative south, the republicans their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the northeast. Hard to imagine today the northeast being republican territory while the south was solid democratic. Then both major parties got rid of their unwanted wings. Today, both are getting rid of their moderates. Both have initiated litmus tests for ideological purity in order to be a member of either major party. In their search for ideological purity, both major parties are shrinking, letting the ideologues of both choose their candidates in today’s modern primary system. This shrinking has been much more pronounced recently as independents, the non-affiliated, the less to non-partisan group of voters have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 up to 43% today.

I’d say the divisiveness in this country is caused by the ideologues in both major parties as they have come to rule over both major parties than the modern primary system.

 

[Gatsby]

Another idea I've been thinking of which relates to this one:

With a limited number of top party officials voting in the smoke-filled room "primary," it would be easier to establish some accountability. Part of the problem with modern primaries is that voters experience no consequences to nominating bad candidates (beyond one-time electoral defeat) and don't change their behavior even if their candidates lose.

Whereas in a smoke-filled room primary consisting of all Democratic congresspeople, you could give each of them 100 votes to distribute however they like, among their preferred candidates for all the red states/districts. Then after the election, you could have some accountability by looking at who actually had the best track record (e.g. percentage of candidates who won, or average overperformance compared to the fundamentals). So in the next election cycle's smoke-filled room primary, instead of having 100 votes the insiders would be rewarded with more votes or punished with fewer votes, based on how their selected candidates did last time. Over time, this self-correcting mechanism would result in the smoke-filled room primary consisting of voters who were very good at recognizing political talent and getting candidates elected. The insiders who picked primary candidates who fared badly wouldn't get as many votes next time around.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Instead of "primary elections"...

I've been wondering of "run off" elections wouldn't work better.

All qualified candidates appear on the first round ballot. No more than 120 days later there is a second ballot vote where the top 3 vote getters (even if from the same party) appear for final selection.

I don't know if there is a technical term for this system or how well it may have worked.

WW

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Eliminate primaries, general election open to anyone who meets whatever threshold each state requires for ballot access (I'd go with petition signatures equal to a percentage of voters in the prior election - maybe 1% for local races, 0.5% for national races).

Mandate instant runoff voting for all national elections (House, Senate, President). VP spot goes to #2 in the runoff.

That'd be my preferred system.

 

[vanceen]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how the modern primary system is one of the main causes of polarization in America today, and it hasn't even produced an obviously-better crop of candidates than the old "smoke-filled room" system (where the party just handpicked their candidates and told the voters who the nominee was).

I think the biggest objection is that the smoke-filled room system was less democratic than the modern primary system...but I'm not sure even *that* holds up to scrutiny. We have gotten ourselves into a situation where there are only 97 swing House districts (meaning they are between R+5 and D+5), and only 14 swing Senate states. The rest are totally non-competitive. Aside from rare instances where the in-party forfeits the seat by nominating a criminal or a nutcase, the outcome of all the other congressional seats is predetermined. If we consider the more democratic system to be the one that provides an outcome that better represents voter sentiment, then the smoke-filled room would seem to be the better approach.

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting. Let's say that a party drops the ball and the voters nominate a bad candidate for a Senate seat, who loses the election badly. In a healthy system, they would learn their lesson and nominate someone better next time. But the primary system doesn't allow for that. If they lose enough elections in a row, the voters will simply come to associate the party with those unpopular candidates, stop identifying as party members, and stop voting in the primaries. This leaves only the true ideological believers to vote in the primaries, who are even *less* in touch with what the voters want than before.

I think our parties (and our democracy) would be better served if one or both of them unilaterally decided to abandon the primary system for congressional races, and go back to the smoke-filled room system...at least for the districts/states where they normally lose. Obviously the primary system is not working for them or for the voters. Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

I've been saying this for some time.

Another way of framing it is to say that primaries are usually low turnout, and dominated by more motivated voters. As a result, a candidate has to appeal to more extreme voters to win the primaries, and then triangulate back to the center to win the general election. Unfortunately, the candidates who do better with the more extreme voters are usually the more extreme candidates. So we get more ideological and less practical.

Another obvious flaw is that parties now have very little power to vet candidates. Someone like Donald Trump would never have been nominated in the "smoke filled room" days.

 

[vanceen]

Interesting, we began our modern primary system in 1976. Prior to that there were anywhere from 10-14 primaries depending on the year with some of those being non-binding. Party leaders from each state got together and decided who their state delegates would back for the nomination. Under that old system came FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon with the new primary system producing Carter and the rest of the presidents. Some of the presidents and some of the candidates who opposed them wouldn’t have received the nomination from their party under the old system.

Does the modern primary system help promote today’s divisiveness? Maybe, I’m not sure. Perhaps what has is how both major parties evolved over the years. There was a time when I was young when both major parties had their liberal, conservative and moderate wings. The democrats their solid conservative south, the republicans their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the northeast. Hard to imagine today the northeast being republican territory while the south was solid democratic. Then both major parties got rid of their unwanted wings. Today, both are getting rid of their moderates. Both have initiated litmus tests for ideological purity in order to be a member of either major party. In their search for ideological purity, both major parties are shrinking, letting the ideologues of both choose their candidates in today’s modern primary system. This shrinking has been much more pronounced recently as independents, the non-affiliated, the less to non-partisan group of voters have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 up to 43% today.

I’d say the divisiveness in this country is caused by the ideologues in both major parties as they have come to rule over both major parties than the modern primary system.

It's also possible that because of the modern primary system, centrist candidates and those who differ from the "bulk" of their party (liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats) do poorly in primaries for the reasons I gave above. So they gradually disappear from their parties.

In other words, the evolution of the parties may be a result of the modern primary system rather than an alternative explanation of the current divisiveness.

 

[Perotista]

It's also possible that because of the modern primary system, centrist candidates and those who differ from the "bulk" of their party (liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats) do poorly in primaries for the reasons I gave above. So they gradually disappear from their parties.

In other words, the evolution of the parties may be a result of the modern primary system rather than an alternative explanation of the current divisiveness.

Could be. Kind of like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Maybe even a combination of both having a hand in the other.

 

[Visbek]

I've been thinking a lot recently about how the modern primary system is one of the main causes of polarization in America today....

It isn't.

Extremists have simply hijacked the low turnouts of primaries, and relied on partisanship and a lack of competitiveness to carry them through the election.

You're treating a symptom like it's the root cause.

But do go on.

it hasn't even produced an obviously-better crop of candidates than the old "smoke-filled room" system (where the party just handpicked their candidates and told the voters who the nominee was).

How do you measure that?

I think the biggest objection is that the smoke-filled room system was less democratic than the modern primary system...but I'm not sure even *that* holds up to scrutiny.

Uhhhhh yeah... it does.

We measure how democratic something is based on who decides, not the quality of the outcome. There are plenty of examples where party bigwigs don't get their way, including Republicans in 2016, AOC, Mamdani....

We have gotten ourselves into a situation where there are only 97 swing House districts (meaning they are between R+5 and D+5), and only 14 swing Senate states.

That's not a result of the primaries. That's a result of the anti-democratic features of the US Constitution.

Probably the worst aspect of the modern primary system is that bad political decisions are self-perpetuating instead of self-correcting.

Sure. But the smoke-filled room doesn't fix that either.

Party bigwigs picking candidates will not fix gerrymandering, or the anti-democratic nature of the Senate, or a refusal to add House reps, or partisan polarization, or the Electoral College, or obscene campaign spending, or dark money, or pretty much anything. It'll just make the parties even less responsive to the public.

And as I believe I mentioned to you earlier today: Ultimately, you can't fix the most serious problems facing a democratic system -- notably autocratic impulses, rising economic inequality, or deteriorating trust in institutions -- just by tweaking a few rules. The most serious offenders do not give a shit about norms or rules or laws or constitutional provisions. Ultimately, if the public doesn't like its government, it's going to have to get off its collective asses and do something about it rather than rely on politicians to do all the work.

 

[Safiel]

Primaries are one of the stupidest things this country engages in.

A product of the progressive era, that clearly has long had a fully negative affect.

Primaries should be abolished for ALL elections and each party should internally select its candidates.

 

[Gatsby]

Uhhhhh yeah... it does.

We measure how democratic something is based on who decides, not the quality of the outcome. There are plenty of examples where party bigwigs don't get their way, including Republicans in 2016, AOC, Mamdani....

But the three examples you provided are of candidates who *won* (or are likely to win in the near future)...and the latter two examples are also in extremely partisan jurisdictions. The bigger problem is when primaries cause one party to cede the election entirely.

I agree that primaries are more representative of the people who vote in primaries...but is that the measure we want to use? After all, primaries are just an intermediate step toward picking a congressperson or senator. If primary voters pick an extreme candidate who ends up losing big, thus enabling a lower-quality candidate on the opposite side to win, then that seems to me less democratic than a system where the voters get to choose from two candidates who they more-or-less like and who are about equidistant from the median. If we wanted an objective way to actually measure this, I think it would be something like "Favorability rating of the winning candidate on the week after the election."

That's not a result of the primaries. That's a result of the anti-democratic features of the US Constitution.

No, we had the same Constitution 30 years ago but we had far more competitive districts and states then. In 1998, Democrats won Senate seats in Indiana and both Dakotas. Republicans won the Senate seat in Illinois. That is barely even imaginable today.

Polarization and noncompetitive districts aren't inherently a feature of our Constitution, it's the result of the slow-rolling collapse of our political parties caused by the primary system from the mid-1970s. (It then took a few decades for the parties to sort themselves into distinct and uncompetitive seats.)

Sure. But the smoke-filled room doesn't fix that either.

Party bigwigs picking candidates will not fix gerrymandering, or the anti-democratic nature of the Senate, or a refusal to add House reps, or partisan polarization, or the Electoral College, or obscene campaign spending, or dark money, or pretty much anything.

I don't know why we would expect it to fix everything all at once. It would fix this specific problem.

It'll just make the parties even less responsive to the public.

I disagree. A system where the candidate-pickers are rewarded for winning elections would seem to be inherently more responsive than a system where the candidate-pickers have no personal skin in the game (beyond the disappointment of seeing their candidate lose). The candidate-pickers who screw up and pick losers could get fewer votes in the next smoke-filled room primary...and the candidate-pickers who are great at picking winners could be rewarded with more votes in the next smoke-filled room primary.

And as I believe I mentioned to you earlier today: Ultimately, you can't fix the most serious problems facing a democratic system -- notably autocratic impulses, rising economic inequality, or deteriorating trust in institutions -- just by tweaking a few rules. The most serious offenders do not give a shit about norms or rules or laws or constitutional provisions. Ultimately, if the public doesn't like its government, it's going to have to get off its collective asses and do something about it rather than rely on politicians to do all the work.

You are conflating the problem of lawlessness in the Trump Administration with the problem of partisan/ideological polarization at all levels of our government in both the executive and legislative branch.

 

[Gatsby]

Primaries are one of the stupidest things this country engages in.

A product of the progressive era, that clearly has long had a fully negative affect.

Primaries should be abolished for ALL elections and each party should internally select its candidates.

Yep, I'm coming around to that point of view too. I think the smoke-filled rooms generally worked better than primaries.

I think I'd want to start off by just implementing them in out-party states/districts (Dems running in red states/districts, or Reps running in blue states/districts) since the primary voters clearly haven't been able to field competitive candidates there. For the in-party states/districts, I'd probably stick with primaries for now, under the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" theory. But if the smoke-filled rooms produce more competitive candidates, then I'd be open to expanding them to ALL elections.

 

[Visbek]

But the three examples you provided are of candidates who *won* (or are likely to win in the near future)...and the latter two examples are also in extremely partisan jurisdictions. The bigger problem is when primaries cause one party to cede the election entirely.

Party selection of candidates will not make jurisdictions less partisan; you already know that, because you know districts are getting more uniform (and gerrymandered). It will just concentrate more power, with less accountability, into the hands of the party bosses.

It doesn't guarantee that candidates will be more moderate. It only guarantees that candidates will do what the party bosses tell them to do.

I agree that primaries are more representative of the people who vote in primaries...but is that the measure we want to use?

Yes... Because that's more democratic than allowing party bosses to pick candidates who will do what the party bosses want.

If the problem is that "not enough citizens are voting in primaries," then I do not see how removing primary elections is the answer.

After all, primaries are just an intermediate step toward picking a congressperson or senator. If primary voters pick an extreme candidate who ends up losing big, thus enabling a lower-quality candidate on the opposite side to win, then that seems to me less democratic than a system where the voters get to choose from two candidates who they more-or-less like and who are about equidistant from the median.

...except that voters aren't getting additional choices. They're getting fewer opportunities to choose, because it's the party bosses picking candidates.

In theory the US could switch to multiple candidates from each party on the ticket, and rank-choiced voting, on a single election day. I haven't studied whether any nation does that.

If we wanted an objective way to actually measure this, I think it would be something like "Favorability rating of the winning candidate on the week after the election."

I don't see how that proves much of anything.

No, we had the same Constitution 30 years ago but we had far more competitive districts and states then.

Yes, that's because Americans spent a few decades geographically sorting themselves out by party affiliation. It wasn't because of primaries.

Polarization and noncompetitive districts aren't inherently a feature of our Constitution, it's the result of the slow-rolling collapse of our political parties caused by the primary system from the mid-1970s.

Or... Perhaps the problem is that most Americans feel disconnected from politics, and thus don't vote in sufficient numbers in any elections.

It doesn't help that Republicans have spent decades deliberately trying to discourage voting.

A system where the candidate-pickers are rewarded for winning elections would seem to be inherently more responsive than a system where the candidate-pickers have no personal skin in the game....

...except that those candidate-pickers -- who are often unelected -- are going to expect something in return for granting that candidacy. That is, after all, how things worked in the Good Ol' Days. Local political machines were much more powerful, and often corrupt (e.g. Tammany Hall).

I also don't see why primary voters are less motivated to win than party bigwigs.

You are conflating the problem of lawlessness in the Trump Administration with the problem of partisan/ideological polarization at all levels of our government in both the executive and legislative branch.

No, I'm simply saying that rules don't stop autocrats. We can't put defending democracy on autopilot. If you want to stop an autocrat from taking over, you're going to need to get off the couch and protest.

 

[Gatsby]

Party selection of candidates will not make jurisdictions less partisan; you already know that, because you know districts are getting more uniform (and gerrymandered).

The issue mostly isn't even that districts have stronger ideological leans than they did in the past. (That is to say, I'm not actually sure there are many more R+20 or D+20 districts than in the past.) It's that the out-party has no chance at ever winning an election in a district that leans +20 toward the opposite party. That wasn't always the case. That is a comparatively recent development.

It will just concentrate more power, with less accountability, into the hands of the party bosses.

But the "party bosses" are themselves just elected officials. We could just let all the sitting Democratic members of Congress (or a delegate of their choosing) pick the candidates for all the red districts/states that the party doesn't already hold, and reward the good candidate-pickers with more votes next time around.

It doesn't guarantee that candidates will be more moderate.

That's fine, I'd be happy with candidates who are more electable. I suspect that moderation is more-or-less related to that, but if I'm wrong and some other electoral strategy works better, then this approach will bring that strategy to light.

Yes... Because that's more democratic than allowing party bosses to pick candidates who will do what the party bosses want.

I guess I'm not seeing any sign of democracy in an R+15 district where a few thousand Democrats nominate a candidate to lose by 15 points, and a few thousand Republicans nominate a candidate to win by 15 points, and everyone already knows the outcome before Election Day.

If the problem is that "not enough citizens are voting in primaries," then I do not see how removing primary elections is the answer.

It's less about the absolute number of voters, and more about the fact that the primary electorate is not representative of the general electorate.

...except that voters aren't getting additional choices. They're getting fewer opportunities to choose, because it's the party bosses picking candidates.

But picking a primary candidate isn't really choosing anything because winning a primary isn't an elected office with any power. It's just an intermediate step.

In theory the US could switch to multiple candidates from each party on the ticket, and rank-choiced voting, on a single election day. I haven't studied whether any nation does that.

I agree, that would probably be an improvement over the current system.

...except that those candidate-pickers -- who are often unelected -- are going to expect something in return for granting that candidacy. That is, after all, how things worked in the Good Ol' Days. Local political machines were much more powerful, and often corrupt (e.g. Tammany Hall).

What they would get in return for picking good candidates is more influence over the next smoke-filled room. I envision it working something like this:

All the sitting Democratic senators (or a delegate of their choosing) convene to pick the Democratic candidates for next year's election, in the ~18 Senate seats up for grabs which the party doesn't already hold. For each seat, they have a mini-primary among themselves with each candidate-picker getting an equal 100 votes per seat. Some of the candidate-pickers might think that moderates win more often, some of them think that leftists win more often, some of them are driven more by personal/biographical details, and some of them just pick the tallest candidate. After the election, we look to see which candidate-pickers did the best job picking winners (or picking overperformers). The ones who did well get 150 votes per seat next time, and the ones who did badly only get 50 votes per seat next time. Over time, the candidate-pickers who do a good job picking winners will have more influence and therefore the party will nominate better-quality candidates.

 

[Visbek]

The issue mostly isn't even that districts have stronger ideological leans than they did in the past. (That is to say, I'm not actually sure there are many more R+20 or D+20 districts than in the past.) It's that the out-party has no chance at ever winning an election in a district that leans +20 toward the opposite party. That wasn't always the case.

True... But again, that's not because of primaries. It's because of gerrymandering.

But the "party bosses" are themselves just elected officials.

Oh? When was the last time you voted for a party official?

Did you vote for Ken Martin to lead the DNC, or Michael Whatley to run the RNC?

We could just let all the sitting Democratic members of Congress (or a delegate of their choosing) pick the candidates for all the red districts/states that the party doesn't already hold, and reward the good candidate-pickers with more votes next time around.

We could also let state legislatures pick Senators.

It's less about the absolute number of voters, and more about the fact that the primary electorate is not representative of the general electorate.

And again, the reason why primaries are less representative are because fewer people vote in them.

You don't need any sort of special permission to vote in a primary; any eligible voter can do it. Most Americans just can't be bothered to do so. Having party bosses pick candidates is not going to make voters more engaged in the process.

What they would get in return for picking good candidates is more influence over the next smoke-filled room. I envision it working something like this:

Yeah, I doubt that's how it will work. You're going to have potential candidates sucking up to and bribing bosses for their support, while anyone who puts loyalty to the people or to principles above loyalty to the party will be left out in the cold.

Plus, why would I want a Senator from California to pick New York's candidates? That just doesn't make any sense.

Some issues can be fixed -- but as we've seen, they can also be unfixed. E.g. California set up a pretty good anti-gerrymandering system, and are now junking it because of Texas.

I.e. no set of rules, however elaborate, is going to fix many of the fundamental issues here, notably:
- Voter disengagement
- Republicans discouraging or blocking voting
- Conservatives working for decades to undermine democracy
- Autocrats subverting the judiciary and/or legislature
- Voters being manipulated by misinformation, fear, racism, sexism, xenophobia etc

 

[j brown's body]

The weakness of the power of political parties eliminates the back room selection.

I sympathize with its decline, for parties we're always very good at keeping demagogues from the nomination. Trump's genius was recognizing and exploiting the ideological bankruptcy of the GOP.

The rise in money in politics makes primaries great for those who raise a lot money and that enables them to bypass party scrutiny.

Meanwhile, political parties are blamed for all of our electoral problems and are wildly unpopular. So prospect of bringing back smoked filled rooms would seem rather remote.