The delays and potential errors in the results of the Iowa Democratic caucus should cause Americans of both parties to reconsider how the country selects its nominees.
The current system of primaries and caucuses staggered over several months has three primary flaws. A new method of selecting nominees would be beneficial for the country.
First, states that vote early in the process (especially Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada) unfairly carry greater weight in the selection of the nominee than other states. Winners in early states typically receive increased contributions and media attention, both of which are critical for the long nomination process. Losing candidates in these states typically drop out of the race due to financial difficulties and a perceived lack of momentum and voter interest. These early states, therefore, can decrease and shape the pool of candidates from which the rest of the country chooses.
States that vote later in the process may not be able to vote for their favorite candidates if they have already dropped out of the race. In some instances, the candidates that left the race early could have done well in subsequent and later-voting states, possibly garnering enough votes to win the nomination. One can never know how they could have done, however, because they had to drop out of the election due to their poor showing in early states and the consequences thereof.
The system of having primaries and caucuses over a period of several months is not democratic. Elections in America are based on the principles that each person receives one vote, and each vote has the same power. Voters in early voting states have more power in their votes, however, because their votes decide who wins their state contests and also influences which candidates will be available in later contests.
The second flaw in the nomination system is that the emphasis on the early states may also increase the tendency of candidates to take extreme positions that increase partisanship and gridlock. While candidates should be truthful, they sometimes take positions to attract voters. In the early states, they may make statements which might be popular there but not acceptable to voters in other states throughout the nation. Ultimately, the parties may have candidates espousing extreme beliefs which they do not believe, and that may cause increased partisanship. What’s more, the current system only requires candidates to show they can win statewide elections serially, not a truly national contest like the one in November.
The third issue pertains specifically to states with “open” primaries, in which one does not have to be a party member to participate in choosing the party’s nominee. Consequently, the winners of these primaries may not reflect the choices of solely the party members in those states.
The solution is for all 50 states to hold the election on the same day, just as they do in the November general election. Each state would have primaries (thus removing caucuses) to create unanimity in the voting procedure. The contests would be closed party primaries, so that only registered party members get to choose the party’s nominee. Results from states voting earlier in the day would not be released until the last state has voted, so as not to influence voters in the Western time zones.
This same-day, closed national primary would likely result in nominees who are more representative of the nation as a whole, less partisan, and proven capable of winning a national campaign. Several states, especially those with early contests in the present system, would likely resist such a new system, but the Republican Party and Democratic Party leadership must convince them that this approach is good for each party and for the nation as a whole.
Michael B. Abramson is a lawyer, author, and adviser with the National Diversity Coalition for Trump.
