The Second most important change in how the President is elected is the shift from the Convention system to the Primary system. In 1828, Andrew Jackson implemented the convention system to elect the party nominee. This process was soon overrun by corruption, and primaries slowly worked their way into the nomination process, but it was in 1968 when everything changed. Hubert Humphrey was able to secure the Democratic nomination for President without running in a single primary, and the Democrats decided it was time for change by voting for candidates in the convention based on the primary results. For the first time, the general public could truly have a say in what candidates would run for President. “Among the World’s democracies, only the United States uses popular elections to select party nominees for public office.” No where else is democracy displayed in its truest colors. By giving ordinary voters the chance to determine the candidates, more power is put in the hands of the people. It is “desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to who so important a trust was to be confided.” Hamilton’s words echo the sentiment passed down through history that the ideals of the citizens of the United States be reflected in their leaders. With the power to nominate in the hands of the people, those nominated and finally elected will find themselves ideologically that much closer to the people. This concept is called democratization and is defined as “the spread of direct primaries, and the inclusion of more women and minorities as delegates…and a requirement that delegates carry out their pledges to vote for certain candidates at the conventions.” This system allows more people the chance to run for President. The nomination system is open; therefore, candidates such as Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 can get on state ballots. Corruption is easier to control in a wide open nomination system under which citizens are conscious of what are is going on.
However, there are distinct disadvantages to this primary system. Democratization can sometimes yield candidates that are unelectable or ill-suited to win the Presidency. “The new rules permit liberal activists or little-known outsiders to capture the nominating process.” The voting rates in the primaries are low. Those who do vote are usually party activists who swing far to the left or the right. Therefore, sometimes the candidates who they chose are not representative to the party as a whole and although they win the primary they are not well suited to run for President. In addition, the primary season takes an incredible amount of time and energy. “The lengthy, arduous nominating process wears down candidates and wears out voters.” Candidates must endure background checks, create finance support, express clear policy and vision, mobilize party support, and finally attract the vote of millions of citizens. These factors all convince many qualified candidates to decline to run.
The third crucial change in the way we elect our President is the drastic shift of the power of money over the system. The primaries are front-loaded. In order to win the primary elections, candidates must grab momentum quickly and are forced to put a great deal of time and money into winning the first few elections. On Super Tuesday, twelve states hold their primaries on the same day. Because candidates cannot be in twelve places at once, they rely on television to relay their messages. Television advertisements must run days, weeks, and months before the elections to promote candidate’s messages. These ads cost a lot of money. “According to a New York Times article published in September, 2004, a 30-second spot on American Idol was being sold for $658,333.” While this is on the high side, candidates need to get their ads on prime time television in order to reach their audience of millions. If candidates do not have party support, they are must use their own money. Congress has tried to stop excessive spending to no avail. “Despite the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974…1996 became the year when all semblance or restraint in campaign financing went by the boards.” Bill Clinton was able to amass such a fortune that year in soft money, that he was able to literally scare off other contenders who knew they could not compete for airtime and publicity due to his huge treasury. In 2000 President Bush became the first candidate to opt out of the Federal matching program which matched funds raised by candidates, while capping spending at “33.78 million dollars.” John Kerry followed suite in 2004 and mortgaged his home in order to amass enough money to buy enough airtime to win enough early primary votes. The way money affects the system today has drastic effects on how we chose our President. Though the primaries allow for more candidates and an open forum, money vastly restricts who can make a legitimate Presidential run. Gone are the blue collar days of Jimmy Carter; now a multi-million dollar bank account has become a pre-requisite for running for office. Though the pubic has access to more information about candidates, that information is so screwed and so conflicting that it is hard to know what is truth and what is purely propaganda. People are far less likely to trust the candidates that they are voting for. Further, because of the Electoral College only those in the battle ground states see any advertisements at all. Finally, those who contribute large sums of money to campaigns are increasingly buying access to the President that is not afforded to the common people. The finance of campaigns has drastically influenced how elections are settled.
Winston Churchill proclaimed that “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Indeed the United States is left with a paradox of a system. More people can run then ever before because of the open primaries, but lack of funds keeps them from doing so. In order to select a good candidate the process of selection is long and arduous. It is this very long and arduous system which keeps many viable candidates from throwing their hat in the ring. More information is available to the voting public through all forms of media; that information is so overwhelming and incongruous that it becomes confusing and meaningless. While voter turnout in the primary system is down because people are sick of candidates who they don’t like or don’t care about, it is those few to the far left and the far right who actually vote, thus there is no change. The fact that the President can only serve two terms ensures safety from an unfair concentration of power; however this means that the very best Presidents can only stay on for eight years. The three most crucial changes in the way we elect our President have all been enacted in the sprit of democracy and free enterprising. Though not all have helped the democratic process and while some have actually hindered it, all are present in order to maintain our free society.
Bibliography
- The Federalist Papers. Clinton Rossiter, Editor. Penguin Putnam Inc., 1961
-
Presidency and the Political System.6th Edition. Michael Nelson, Editor. Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2000.
- www.encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Federal%20Election%20Campaign%20Act
- www.indianchild.com/georgewashington.htm
- www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/features/netporn/amndmnts.htm
- www.televisionadvertising.com/faq.htm
www.indianchild.com/georgewashington.htm
www.superkids.com/aweb/pages/features/netporn/amndmnts.htm
The Presidency and the Political System, pg. 253
The Federalist Papers, pg. 410
The Presidency and the Political System, pg. 254
The Presidency and the Political System, pg. 254
The Presidency and the Political System, pg. 263
www.televisionadvertising.com/faq.htm
The Presidency and the Political System, pg. 256
www.encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Federal%20Election%20Campaign%20Act