Critically examine the role played by primaries, caucuses and the Electoral College in the election of US presidents.

Written by Hannah Sheehy (Feb 2007)

            There are many stages in the election of a President in the United States, such as primaries, caucuses and the Electoral College. All of these processes are vital to the result of the election, and many Americans believe that the different factors which account towards electing a president make their system more democratic. In this essay I plan to critically evaluate the given factors, and examine how they are used. I hope to come to a conclusion about whether they do or do not enhance democracy, and weigh up their pros and cons.

Primary elections and caucuses

            A primary is commonly known as an electoral device for choosing party candidates for public office. The formal primary system is unique to the US, and did not come into widespread use until the early 20th century. Some states use it for elections to state office, and primaries are widely used in the presidential elections in the US. In this process delegates from each state are sent to a national party convention, with the job of voting for the candidate to whom they are pledged. There are two types of primary election; a closed vote primary, where only party members are allowed to vote, and an open vote primary, which is open to everyone in the district who is eligible to vote.

Criticisms of the primary elections

Representatives

            Great attention is paid to the New Hampshire Primary and the IOWA caucus, however many theorists and former politicians point out that these statea are not representative of the US as a whole. It is overwhelmingly white, very rural, and wealthier than the national average. According to Mississippi secretary of state Eric Clarke, this makes the US system less democratic as ruling elite are getting the most influence in the outcome of the elections. Other states with fast growing multi-cultural populations such as New Jersey and Montana have their primaries last. Therefore they usually end up with no say in who the presidential candidate will be. An example of this was in 2004, when they had their primaries scheduled for the 13th of June. This was 13 weeks after senator john Kerry had been announced as unopposed, and therefore the primaries still being held were pretty meaningless. Eric Clark said “It's obvious to me that too many Americans, including Mississippians, are effectively left out of the process. The problem now is that too many states are having their primary elections very early in the year, and the nomination is locked up in a matter of weeks. The nominees had effectively been decided by March 7 [2000]. Mississippians had no meaningful voice in the process. In fact, Americans in 33 states had no meaningful voice in the process. Instead of getting people involved, today's primary system rewards big money and mass media campaigns. Every candidate should have a fair chance to be heard, regardless of how much money he or she has.”

Front – loading and compression

            States attempt to take part in the process of front – loading, whereby they have their primaries as early as possible. This in turn gives them greater influence and media attention over the election, and can create what one political theorist called the ‘bandwagon’ effect. This is where other voters in states who hold their primary elections later, simply follow the lead of the states that have already gone, subsequently, “jumping on the bandwagon”.
            Another important aspect to note is that candidates can ignore primaries after their nomination has been secured, and therefore may feel that they owe less politically to these states. This means that once in power the candidate can effectively give preferential treatment to certain states, and in turn other states can be neglected. As a result of this we get the process of compression where rather than primaries taking place from March to July, most are squashed together throughout February and March. In my opinion this makes the system less democratic as the candidate is only being judged and scrutinised by the electorate for one month, whereas if they were to last for the proposed 6 months, much more judgement of the candidate’s composure could take place. National parties also favour compression as it allows them to use fewer resources, and therefore save them for the main campaign.
            Due to these processes, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where they spend their time. This in its self is not only unfair, but on days like ‘super Tuesday’ for example, attention flows to the larger states which have the larger number of delegates, therefore having a negative impact on the smaller states. In fact, historically, Super Tuesday was designed to benefit the southern states, as they were often the largest. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

Reform Proposals

            There are several proposals for reform when it comes to the primary system, with many calling for a single nationwide primary to be held on one day, and others pointing out that the current system allows money to play too much of an influence in the election results. Alternative reform concepts such as the American plan would return the presidential primary season to a more relaxed schedule. Fewer primaries in smaller states would allow grassroots campaigns to score early successes and “pick up steam.”

The Electoral College

            The election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. Although the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it has no legal role in presidential elections. The size of the Electoral College has been set at 538 since the election of 1964. Each state is allocated as many electors as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress. Since the most populous states have the most seats in congress, they also have the most electors. The Presidential Electors meet in their respective state capitals in December, 41 days following the election, at which time they cast their electoral votes. Thus the "electoral college" never meets as one national body. They ballot for President, then ballot for vice president. The Elector is not allowed to vote for a Presidential candidate and a Vice-Presidential candidate who are both from the same state as them. Afterward, the Electors sign a document called the Certificate of Vote which sets forth the number of votes cast for these two offices and is signed by all Electors. Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed in case one is lost. One copy is sent to president of the Senate and the other certificates are placed in two special mahogany boxes where they await a joint session of the new Congress where they are opened and counted. Candidates must receive a majority of the electoral vote to be declared the winner.

Disadvantages of the Electoral College system

Unequal weight of votes
            Under the current Electoral College system, the vote of someone living in a large state which has three electoral votes is more influential than someone living in a smaller state that occupies only one vote. Theorists argue that this is highly undemocratic as individuals are given disproportionate voting power, which undermines Plato and Aristotle’s concept of democracy, whereby everyone has an equal say. This also means that key ‘swing states get more attention from presidential candidates.

Loss of popular votes
            In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president; this is due to the Electoral College. Mainly because the larger states such as Florida have the most electors, so the smaller states are outnumbered. Essentially the votes cast by the Electoral College are deceptive in comparison to the popular vote.

Disadvantage for third parties
            Due to the nature of the current system, third parties do not bet a look in despite the amount of popular votes which they received, therefore a proposal to reform the electoral college to proportional representation is thought to be a feasible option.

Conclusion
            Therefore, in conclusion, primaries, caucuses and the Electoral College all play a vital role in the US electoral system, and are rigid and entrenched in the countries political history; however there is evidence to suggest that these traditions are continuing at the expense of democracy, the very principle which America prides itself upon.