The advantages of primary elections far outweigh their disadvantages in the selection of each party's presidential candidate, discuss.

by comeonelleen (student)

‘The advantages of primary elections far outweigh their disadvantages in the selection of each partys presidential candidate’, discuss.

Primary elections are elections held previous to a Presidential election to decide upon the presidential candidate from the two main parties. These are held in each state, each of which then goes on to sponsor the winning candidate of their primary at the national convention, where the party’s presidential candidate is announced. This method of choosing a candidate came about due to the McGovem/Fraser Commission of 1968 (where Mayor Daley refused McGovem the chance to run as he was too liberal). It replaced the old system of decisions being made in ‘smoke filled rooms’ where party bosses were all powerful and made the decision.

The alternative to the primary election is the caucus, which is more similar to the original version of candidate nomination. Delegates from regional parties attend a meeting in a town hall in order to discuss issues and the candidate’s positions on them, then ultimately decide upon one to support at the national convention.

There are many advantages to the primary election system. Firstly, the electorate are allowed to choose the best candidate for them, who they support on the most issues. This form of direct democracy is the best way for the populace to get who they want in power as they directly choose who they would like. This is not skewed, as a caucus may be, as every eligible person is entitled to a vote.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The primaries have the advantage of being able to cut out the weak from the strong, per se. It distinguishes a candidate with potential to succeed nationally from one who may be only popular in some areas. Some liberal Northern Democrat politicians may not translate well in the more conservative south and vice versa. This national popularity can make or break a candidate. In 2008, some analysts were sceptical about Barack Obama’s chances as they did not know how he would fare in the South, but having broken these states, he went on to become candidate and subsequently 2 term president. The hard going nature is almost like a dry run for the actual presidential election campaign. It’s a very taxing process for the candidate and thus they are tested to see whether they have the stamina to cope with the real presidential campaign, which is even harder. It weeds out the weak candidates, who will lose momentum along the way and fall out of the race. Those who cannot handle the campaign for the primary election, would not be cut out for presidency.

A last advantage to the primary elections is that it gives a chance to candidates that would not otherwise be in the running for presidential candidacy. What may be an unconventional democrat/liberal who is unpopular within the party may prove a hit with the electorate and gain a lot of votes. The party will get the candidate who is most electable out of the options, even if this is not necessarily someone entirely in line with party ideology. Jimmy Carter, for example, was not widely known until the 1976 primaries when his distance from DC politics played to his advantage, as it meant that he was also distanced from the recent Watergate Scandal.

This could also be seen as a disadvantage to the primary election, as it prevents the parties from expressing their wishes towards who the candidate should be, and thus an unworthy candidate may be chosen. Primaries could lead to someone with little experience of governance, or someone who is not representing the party ideal being put forward as candidate and the state parties could have no influence over this.

Another disadvantage to the primary election is the pure monetary cost of the campaign. Candidates are required to travel around states for months and heavily advertise their campaigns which costs a lot of money. Whilst successful candidates may receive sponsorships from big companies eventually, the campaign requires a huge expenditure to set the ball rolling. Thus, less well-off candidates are ostracised and it is almost impossible to launch a campaign without huge financial backing. Thus, the poor of America are incapable of running for presidency. It has thus been said that ‘America has the best democracy that money can buy’.

The election process is also criticised, for going on for too long and being excessively vain. Having a primary at a different time in each state means that the process is drawn out and publicised for months previous to the presidential election, and even longer if the invisible primary is taken into account. This means that the electorate grow tired of the constant campaigning and lose interest before the real election rolls around. The voter turnout to primaries is very low, and is usually made up of mainly party activists. The media spotlight on the candidates during the primary elections could be seen to turn them not into legitimate politicians but celebrities who are judged not on policy but on appearance and charisma.

The primary could be seen to have a negative effect on party image and unity also. As the candidates campaign then they criticise their opponents, who may eventually end up as part of their political team. The party image is detracted from with the bickering and the picking of flaws between the candidates. Also a candidate’s ideological position may change through the campaign also, to detract from their continuity. In the primaries, a candidate will want to appeal to their own party, so will be more left/right wing (respectively for the Democrat/Republican parties) but should they win, and be campaigning to a wider audience, then they will move towards the centre ground for mass appeal.

Thus, there are a lot of negative features to the Primary elections, but the democracy that they bring is fairly indisputable, and they are definitely preferable to the previous methods.