What kind of blogger would I be if I didn't have something to say about Super Tuesday? Probably a better one.
Super Tuesday was roundly and repeatedly described as the closest thing we have ever had to a national primary day because Republicans and Democrats were both holding contests in more than 20 states. We know now that it hasn't settled anything, and it doesn't seem that it was a truly representative contest. Is it possible to say, based on the results of Tuesday's elections, that we know what the country as a whole wants? Simply, no.
We won't ever have a national primary unless there is a nationwide electoral process--a process that is not dependent on state divisions and subdivisions for apportioning votes. A primary cannot be a national process unless everyone is voting in the same election, and as long as Californians are voting in a California primary, it's not a national process.
A national process would be something like the French electoral system wherein all the presidential candidates compete in a two round election. If any candidate wins 50% +1 in the first election, he or she is elected president. If no one gets a majority, then the top two candidates compete in a second election a few months later in order to select one. With only two on the ballot, this process ensures that the president is elected with majority support from the population.
In this country, it would mean that all the Republicans and Democrats would compete with each other in a single vote. There would not be separate Republican primaries and Democratic primaries, but a single vote with everyone on the ballot. Then, assuming the vote is split in several ways, the top two candidates would compete for the presidency in a later general election.
I have thought for a long time that the French model was a better system than what we use. Our system is based on a fractured electorate voting in different contests at different times. It gives disproportional power to small states that vote early and discounts the votes of states that hold later primaries. Furthermore, in the general election, it is often the case that the President is elected with a minority of votes. Not just George Bush in 2000, but Bill Clinton in both 1996 and 1992 became president without having a majority of Americans supporting him. We can't say that simple majority rule is the sufficient for democracy, but it is necessary for democracy. It is anti-democratic to elect a president with less than 50% of the vote.
This primary season has been wildly different from the past several cycles. Thus, I have come to realize that the French double vote system is a product of their broader political system and may not be easily grafted on to our system.
For one, the French system does not usually operate to select party representatives where as out primary system is designed to do just that. The French two round system by contrast operates to winnow the field of parties who have a chance at winning. There are three to four viable parties in France and preselected candidates from those parties compete in the first round of voting. One or two are typically knocked out
and the other parties compete for the endorsement of the eliminated parties.
With just two parties, we would have three or four Democrats competing with three or four Republicans. Then the candidates eliminated in the first round would just be expected to back the candidate from their party. So, in this way, a two round election wouldn't settle anything in the first round in our system. And without multiple parties, we might not benefit from having this sort of primary.
Second, as this primary season has shown, there is some value in having a series of elections that allow lesser known candidates to build support over time. If we had a single national primary, I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would be the nominees from each party. From my perspective, it is a good thing for a solid candidate to be able to build support over time through a series of small elections. A national primary would effectively eliminate that possibility and would instead mean that national name recognition would be the essential quality for a successful candidacy.
I still think the French system is a good idea, however, because it ensures that the President has a majority support in the electorate. So, now there are two questions. First, since there is no need to reinvent the wheel, are there small ways to change our system so that a two round election could be used and combined with the advantages of our primary season? Second, if that is not possible, what is the best way to ensure that we can get the benefits of the French system without actually using it?
I'm pretty much going to leave it there for now so that I have more time to think about those questions. The short answer to the first question is that we might need to change party organization and regulation so that parties are prepared to have an early election and so that third parties can viably contest a national election. The short answer of the second question is that it is always possible to restrict the ballot so that voters are forced to choose between no more than two candidates and thus produce a majority.
