Primaries as partisan purifiers
A problem?
Last week’s round of upsets in Senate primary races was interpreted by many as the product of an anti-incumbent and -establishment mood. Maybe more than that, however, it was the standard result of primary voters rewarding those especially to the right or left. In the Kentucky Republican race, Rand Paul defeated Trey Grayson. In the Pennsylvania Democrat race, Joe Sestak defeated incumbent Arlen Specter. And incumbent Blanche Lincoln is in a runoff with Bill Halter for the Arkansas Democratic ticket. In all three cases, primary voters have punished the more “moderate” candidate.
Are these primary votes a good thing? Not every democracy has them.
Democracy seems to be in their favor, though. Rather than party insiders somewhat shadily selecting candidates and placing them in seats strategically, the members of the party themselves decide who shall represent their views.
Parties have an entrenched and often positive role in our system, as the sort of ideological categorical guides I discussed earlier, as a means of cooperation and organization, and as an additional systemic check (on each other). Related, they have an enormous amount of power. To leave the selection and placement of party candidates to a few unelected party leaders affords those people an undue amount of democratically unaccountable influence. And independent candidates, who have an difficult time fighting party machines, cannot be counted upon to check party leaders.
Also, primaries might afford the people an opportunity to escape the traditional, status quo views of party leaders (see Rand Paul).
On the other side is the fact that primary voters, as a strong general rule, reward ideological purity, with the product of more polarized general elections. This leads to a more polarized Congress, which leads to less bi-partisanship, more rancor, and probably worse policies. That’s a big deal. Even if one were a moderate Senator, there may not exist enough fellow moderates to form a serious coalition, and if he wants to get anything done he may just have to retreat to his right/left corner.
There is also the elitist notion that the party leaders will select candidates more qualified for office than those that survive the angry partisan and maybe populist filter of primary elections (see Rand Paul).
And one could argue that it’s unfair to say that these leaders would have no accountability. Elections without primaries are still democratic elections. If party leaders select party candidates, they still have to win a general election. Furthermore, if most voters preferred a more moderate candidate, the primaries seem to make it more difficult to deliver them their democratically preferred candidate.
Do we really think Britain, which lacks party primaries, is significantly less democratic than us?
In sum and to oversimplify, primaries afford our system another layer of democratic accountability, though with some genuine costs for civility and, likely, the quality of policy.
-Jake
Related posts:
- The curious case of Arlen Specter
- Politicians and party
- Oh, politicians and they things they say
- Pauleoconservatism
- How should we pick judges?
ShareComments
One Response to “Primaries as partisan purifiers”
Leave a Reply
[...] constitutional law professor, argues for the abolition of primary elections. (A topic I discussed here). Peter Singer, Princeton utilitarian philosopher, argues we should allow infant euthanasia. [...]