The old process was usually in the power of the party bosses which meant that politics may have been riddled with corruption, and the new process is also widespread making it more democratic. The long process of the modern primaries allows us to get to know the candidates and as it is a gruelling process much like running the country, we can learn whether a candidate is fit for the presidency. For example, in 1992, Senator Paul Tsongas, who had fought back from cancer to run for presidency, was seen to have a lighter schedule than his rivals. Although many admired him as a person and like his policies, they saw in the primaries that he might not have the physical resilience to be president. In 2008, many suggested that Barack Obama was a stronger candidate after his gruelling primary battle with Hilary Clinton than he would have been had he won the nomination without a fight.
On the other hand, there a plethora of arguments showing that public participation in the presidential nomination process does not advance democracy. Firstly, the turnout in the primaries and caucuses is often very low, this is due to the incumbent advantage of their being only really one clear winner. For example, in 1996 it was 17.5% when President Clinton was running for re-election, and 17.2% in 2004 when George W Bush was running for re-election. Even when no incumbent was running in 2000; participation was still only 19%. Further focussing on the electorate, the primary voters and caucus participants are unrepresentative of the population; primary voters tend to be older, better educated, wealthier and more ideological than the voting age population as a whole, thus typically voting for the democrats. For example in 1988 where there was a 25.5% turnout: 16% voted democrat and 9.1% voted for the Republican Party. Also, more ideological candidates do better in primaries than they are expected to; in 2008, Ron Paul – a libertarian republican – won at least 10% of the vote in 14 primaries and caucuses and in three of those contests his vote exceeded 20%. Seven of these 14 contests were caucuses illustrating the unrepresentative turn-out in those kinds of contests.
What’s more is, the media has a significant influence in shaping the voters perception of candidates. In the pre-reform era candidates were chosen by party professionals who knew the candidates well, but now the media has become the new ‘king makers’, Loevy (1995) is very critical of the media influence; ‘Our present nominating process has become a televised horse race focusing more on rival media consultants and advertising executives than on competing ideas, programmes, or even the character of the candidates...’. Moreover campaigns have become very expensive and the candidates are raising more and more money to finance their campaigns and they are starting their campaigns more early to raise as much money as possible. For example, in 1968 Richard Nixon started his campaign 40 days before the first primary, but in 2008 Barack Obama announced that he’ll be campaigning 332 days before the first primary. This selection process being extremely long creates the danger of public disengagement. The huge sums of money that are being raised scares of the smaller candidates who would struggle to make this money even before the primaries have begun; in 2000 where Al Gore raised $33.8 million and received $15.3 million in matching funds and George W Bush raised 491.3 million, Elizabeth Dole pulled out before the primaries saying that the ‘money had become the message’. This is undemocratic as it denies many candidates an even race simply because they aren’t as high profile. Also, candidates are rejecting the matching funds offer so that they can raise the biggest amount of money and make the race uneven and unequal.
Finally, the early states especially Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionate influence. The Iowa caucuses are noteworthy for the amount of media attention they receive during U.S. presidential election years. Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for . Although only about 1% of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention (25 Republican delegates in 2012, assigned proportionately), the Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their at that party's national convention, and which ones could drop out for lack of support.
In conclusion, since the change of the system since 1968 i believe that the system has become far more democratic, however I believe that there are still many flaws in the current system that if corrected could make the candidate selection process more efficient, interesting and most importantly it could further advance democracy.
by
didier11 (student)
