|
Advantages
- A lot more transparent than the corruption envolved in the Machine politics that ruled the selection of the candidacy before this point, where party bosses made 'back room deals' in 'smoke filled rooms'
- Increase participation of the ordinary Voting Age Population despite the fact that participation in primaries had never reached over 30% which it reached in 2008. However in 2012 it plumeted back down to 17% but there was a record turn out of 122,255 in Iowa.
- More candidates: in 1968 there were 3 Democrat and 2 Republican Candidates compared to 8 D and 7 R in 2008 and in 2012 there was 12 republican candidates who came and went through the primary season.
- The gruelling race has been seen by many as an appropriate test of stamina for the candidates who seek the demanding job of the president. This has been important as with Paul Tsongas who was recovering from cancer, he seem to lack the physical resillience for the job.
- It makes the candidates get to know America in all its diversity and
tests their judgement in their choice of campaign strategists and strategy. Some argue that
Obama was a stronger candidate because of the primaries against Hillary
Clinton. Romney too with rule changes and intra-party competition.
- Allows washington ‘Outsiders’ to have a chance against the ‘insiders’; the process is
opened up to candidates who do not at first have national reputations such as
Carter (1976), Bill Clinton (1992) and Barrack Obama (2008).
|
Disadvantages
- Commentators have described it as
‘madness’ (Broder 1996), ‘a crazy process’ (New York Times) and Loevy has questioned the ‘quality of participation’
claiming primary voters often know little about the choices on offer but others
argue they are better informed. Ashbee suggests that the process
contributes to a wider voter fatigue.
- There is often
widespread voter apathy and boredom; more people do participate than
before 1968 but the turn out can vary enormously; when an incumbent president
is running for re-election and so only one party has a genuine contest then
turn out is as low as 17%. (17.5%, 1996, Clinton
re-election, 17.2% 2004 and Bush.) Yet in 2008 it soared to 30%, largely due to
the Democratic contest
- Primary voters are unrepresentative of the voting-age population; they tend to be older, better educated, wealthier and more ideological than the public; Fiorina writes of ‘the ascendance of the purists’. This is possibly more true in caucus meetings which attract more committed Atypical party identifiers and so some ideological candidates do better than they should.The Christian Right has been known to effectively exploit this opportunity in states like Virginia and Texas. Norrander, however, argues that primary voters are not extremists but ‘slightly better informed.
- INVISIBLE PRIMARIES: The 'invisibles' are defined politically as the time between when a candidate states their intention to run and the beginning of the primary season but more realistically they begin before this when a potential candidate begins to 'test the water' for the support they would recieve but it has been argued that they are "anything but invisible" and so the name 'invisibles' is slowly being eroded to the 'pre-primaries'. The invisibles are mainly played out through the media and the two key tests are NAME RECOGNITION (polls) and the WAR CHEST(money/funding) ARE THE OFFICIAL PRIMARIES REALLY THAT IMPORTANT AFTER THE RISE OF THE INVISIBLES. From 1968 to 2012
there were 14 presidential elections and 26 candidates were chosen and on 22 occasions
the nominee was the front runner before the primary season. (13
of 14 in the Republicans) here McCain was the exception but in the Democratic
Party on five occasions including 2004 and 2008 primaries mattered. 2008 was at
least for the Democrats the biggest upset in H.Clinton’s defeat in forty year 2012
ROMNEY AHEAD IN INVISIBLE WAR CHEST BUT STILL A CONTEST. because of this the process has become too
long; Kennedy announced his intention to run 66 days before the
first primary, Kerry 423 days, Obama 332.
- IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE:The New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses are significant in the presidential nomination process because they are the first two contests and thus they are saturated by candidates, events and media during the‘invisibles'
These states are not representative of
the voting age population and hence some criticise their undue significance in the primary process. Winning one in ‘normal’
circumstances boosts a candidate’s likelihood of nomination. Winning both usually secures the
nomination making the rest of the primaries irrelevant as with Reagan
in 1984 and Kerry in 2004. In 2008,McCain won New Hampshire and so did Romney in
2012. In 2008 when Clinton lost Iowa, as with Dean in 2004, Obama’s win
gave him credibility and the ‘big Mo’ over her as the heir-presumptive. Although she later won New Hampshire, he came
a close second and her victory failed to compensate for Iowa.
these 2 contests generate huge media interest and have poll and
financial importance but they also lead to the compression and frontloading of the
season resulting in Super Tuesdays.
- FRONTLOADING AND COMPRESSION:‘Frontloading’ is the phenomenon by which an increasing
number of states from the1980s began to schedule their presidential primaries
or caucuses earlier in the season to increase their influence. Thus,
although primaries are supposed to be spread throughout the spring and summer
of the election year, early scheduling has caused compression and distorted the
primary campaigns. Here attention flows to the larger states with
the most delegates and it limits the ability of lesser known candidates to
corral resources and raise visibility.
- SUPER TUESDAY, SUPER TUESDAY 2 IN 2008:
several contests on
the same day, so-called Super Tuesday which began in the 1980s when a block of
Southern states tried to increase their influence. Yet even in 1988 only 11
states had primaries and caucuses before the end of March. By 2008 it was 42 and
there were even two Super Tuesdays, in the February, Tsunami Tuesday (in which 52% of the
Democratic and 41% of the Republican delegates were awarded) followed by another in March. Here McCain was assured of the
nomination in 2008, as Kerry had been in 2004 and so Senator Brock
argued…‘the
nominations are over before they have begun.”
- BUT RULE CHANGES AND 2012:The Republicans in 2012 sought to overcome distortions by banning
‘winner-takes-all’ contests before 1st April and thus fewer states than in 2008
held contests on Super Tuesday. Only ten
states voting with an allocation of 391 delegates and so it had only about half
the potential impact of its 2008 predecessor.
It was not until April 25th that Romney was declared
the presumptive nominee and it was the longest nomination race since 1992.
- It is very costly given that candidates have to finance campaigns
which involve huge advertising budgets especially for TV and radio
coverage.Elizabeth Dole had to
pull out from the 2000 Republican race before the primaries due to lack of funding and she complained
‘the money
has become the message.’ Obama and Clinton spent over $500 millions on the primary
campaign and fundraising has become a crucial component of the ‘invisible’
contest. 2012 became the first election where both candidates refused matching funding for both the primaries and the election and due to the the citizens united descision and the rise of SUPER PACS it became a $6 BILLION election.
- The process is too media-dominated as it is relied upon
by voters to convey information. Some argue the media has replaced the party
bosses.
Loevy (1995) ‘…a televised horse race focusing more on rival media
consultants… than competing ideas.’
- The process can
develop into bitter
personal feuds like McCain versus Bush in 2000; in some disputes
the rivalry may have played its part in the nominee’s defeat in the general
election. (Bush versus Buchanan in 1992, Carter versus Kennedy in 1980 and
Hillary and Bill Clinton were accused of making personal attacks on Obama.) If
sufficiently serious, voters reject disunited parties.
- There is a lack of peer
review leading to a failure to test presidential qualities;
before 1972 candidates were selected by other professionals but primaries test
campaigning skills not presidential. Cronin and Genovese, so introduction of
super-delegates by Democrats in 1984.
‘What it takes to become a president may not
be what is needed to govern the nation.’ This is one reason for the
introduction of ‘super delegates’ at nomination conventions but if they were used in any significant way this would fuel the argument that they are just party bosses.
|
|
Evaluation
This system was introduced in 1972 after the 1968 debacle, on the back of the Mcgovern-Fraiser commission. It is a significant improvement to the corruption and washington 'insider' domination of the years previous to it's establishment, however there is still many flaws in the system which has lead to it being critisised. There has also been some suggestions of reform, such as:
regional primaries, states split into 4 groups according to population with smallest states voting first, give more 'weight' to elected politicians SUPER DELEGATES (party bosses), some argue there should be pre-primary mini conventions
limited to elected
party politicians to approve a list of three possible presidential candidates;
contenders would need to present a petition signed by at least 10% of the
delegates.
|
Comments
Report