Abigail Hill
The average American democrat enters the voting booth for the general election. They
look down at their party candidate’s name on the ballot, disappointed. “Who decided this?” they wonder. The answer? Mostly those in Iowa, New Hampshire, and early-voting primary states. The average American republican finds themself in a similar sticky situation. Why? Because the national presidential primary system is woefully inadequate.
Throughout America, as the primaries kick-off, we look to Iowa and New Hampshire to yield the first votes that may determine the state of our nation. Unfortunately, this system goes against the very values that this country prides itself in protecting. According to David Leonhardt of the New York Times, “a typical voter in Iowa or New Hampshire has up to 20 times more influence than somebody in later-voting states.” So much for the “one person, one vote” mantra that America adores. Even worse, Leonhardt continues that “demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870,” meaning that the most critical votes represent a nation of centuries ago.
Simply put, voters in later states feel that their vote doesn't matter, choosing to opt-out of voting since they feel that the election has already been decided. The Bipartisan Policy Center in 2012 reports, “average voter turnout in the 2012 statewide primaries... was 17.3% of eligible citizens.” Low voter turnout leads to a nightmare: those most likely to vote are the most ideological voters, generating polarization and the creation of factions.
The current system skews the media, too, resulting in political journalism that is horse race-like in nature. The Pew Research Center describes that 63% of campaign stories focus on tactical aspects of the campaign, while a mere 15% prioritize candidates’ ideas and policy
proposals.
The solution? Holding all primaries on the same day! Elaine Kamarck of Brookings finds
that moving to create a one-day national primary “is the one reform that could close the enormous gap in voter turnout and reduce the chances that [p]olitical parties are captured by factions that increase polarization and impede functioning governance.” Additionally, by limiting the horse-race to one day, political journalism would be more policy-based, enabling voters to cast a more informed ballot.
Proponents of such a reform argue that a national primary day would prevent less
well-known candidates from staying in the race. Upon closer logical analysis of this argument, however, one can see that it is fundamentally flawed. Candidates that are not well-established in national politics rarely win the primary nomination, and almost never win the general election, anyways. This is the case both because lack of experience is easily exploited by the opposing political party and because underdogs typically struggle to finance huge campaigns.
Thus, to promote a brighter, more democratic future, government adoption of a one-day national primary is the only way to go.
Works Cited
"The Invisible Primary – Invisible No Longer." Pew Research Center, 29 Oct.
2007, www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2007/10/29/
the-invisible-primaryinvisible-no-longer/. Accessed 5 Jan. 2022.
Kamarck, Elaine C. "Increasing Turnout in Congressional Primaries." Edited by
Christine Jacobs and Beth Stone. Center for Effective Public Management at
Brookings, Brookings, July 2014, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2016/06/KamarckIncreasing-Turnout-in-Congressional-Primaries72614.pdf.
Accessed 5 Jan. 2022.
Leonhardt, David. "Iowa Should Never Go First Again." The New York Times, New
York Times Company, 26 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/opinion/
iowa-new-hampshire-primary.html. Accessed 5 Jan. 2022.
"National Primary Turnout Hits New Record Low." Democracy Project, special issue
of Bipartisan Policy Center, Oct. 2012, pp. 1-6, bipartisanpolicy.org/
download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TurnoutReport.pdf. Accessed 5
Jan. 2022.
Comments