21 April 2008
Primary Reasons
The electoral system that suits the governance of our country does not necessarily suit the selection of candidates for public office by political parties. Election of officials (and referenda on public policy issues) is a tool for determining the will of a majority or plurality of the people. Political parties exist in order to win those elections and in order to build the coalitions necessary effectively to adopt their policies as law.
It is clear from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, however, that using popular elections to select a political party’s candidates for public office may handicap its ability to win general elections. Whereas the decisions made in the November polling places are individual preferences, the primaries were instituted also to “democratize” the process of adapting political parties to the likely voting behavior of the public (not just party members). Another noble motive may have been to educate party members by affording candidates a forum to present and debate the issues. The outcome of the primaries, in any case, was to have served as guidance to the parties’ conventions on their selection of a winning general election ticket, not as a determinant of that ticket.
Similar to the question of whether corporations ought to be governed by shareholder votes, the answer in the case of political parties is that party members should defer to their duly appointed leaders for finding solutions to their business challenges, especially general elections. Primary elections make it seem that “smoke-filled rooms” have been opened to transparent media coverage. This may provide more entertainment and revenue for the national media, but it doesn’t necessarily result in better government.
The electoral system that suits the governance of our country does not necessarily suit the selection of candidates for public office by political parties. Election of officials (and referenda on public policy issues) is a tool for determining the will of a majority or plurality of the people. Political parties exist in order to win those elections and in order to build the coalitions necessary effectively to adopt their policies as law.
It is clear from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, however, that using popular elections to select a political party’s candidates for public office may handicap its ability to win general elections. Whereas the decisions made in the November polling places are individual preferences, the primaries were instituted also to “democratize” the process of adapting political parties to the likely voting behavior of the public (not just party members). Another noble motive may have been to educate party members by affording candidates a forum to present and debate the issues. The outcome of the primaries, in any case, was to have served as guidance to the parties’ conventions on their selection of a winning general election ticket, not as a determinant of that ticket.
Similar to the question of whether corporations ought to be governed by shareholder votes, the answer in the case of political parties is that party members should defer to their duly appointed leaders for finding solutions to their business challenges, especially general elections. Primary elections make it seem that “smoke-filled rooms” have been opened to transparent media coverage. This may provide more entertainment and revenue for the national media, but it doesn’t necessarily result in better government.
Comments:
Post a Comment
