“Simple Solutions to a Persistent Problem”
Part Two: The Voting Schema
By: J. Hunter
Republicans seem to always be
unimpressed with their Presidential nominees. Last time around, in 2008, our
reservations about Senator John McCain led Chris Matthews to describe the difference
between how Republicans and Democrats choose their candidates by saying that
Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line. If his quip is true, it
does not have to be. By simply changing our voting model, we can choose a
better candidate—one that better represents our interests, intellect and style.
Two-Stage Primary Voting:
When voters step into the voting booth
in a primary election they must answer the question “Who should be the party’s
nominee?” That question is much more complicated than one may realize. A voter
must decide based on a candidate’s shared values, policy positions, style and personal
scandals. Often voters are faced with a choice between their preferred candidate
and the candidate whom they believe stands the best chance to win the general
election. In 2008, for example, I preferred Rudy Giuliani to the other
candidates, but by the time Illinoisans voted, McCain was the presumed nominee
and Giuliani’s campaign had sunk. I, therefore, cast my vote for McCain.
 |
| Senator John McCain (pic1) |
By some measure, McCain was Republicans’
first choice and Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were Republicans’ second and
third choice respectively. But what if that were, in fact, not so? What if Republicans
really preferred Sam Brownback, for example, but only chose McCain because they
thought that he would do best in the general or because they thought that he
was the inevitable favorite? What if every Republican was not voting for
Brownback because they believed that McCain, Huckabee or Romney stood the best
chance of winning the general? Using our current voting schema, there is no way
to really tell who Republicans actually prefer.
With a two-stage voting model, though,
the primary voters vote, first, for their favorite candidate. Do you love Rick
Santorum, but are focusing on the front runners because of poll numbers? In the
first stage of primary voting, you vote Santorum.
After these votes are tallied,
the true favorites will be revealed to the electorate. Voters, then, will vote
in the second stage election, choosing from among the favorites.
The Drawbacks to Two-Stage
Primary Voting:
There are three apparent drawbacks
to two-stage primary voting.
First, it is difficult to determine whether the
results from the two-stage system will vary significantly from the results of
the current system. In other words, maybe Republicans truly wanted McCain to be
the nominee, and a two-stage system would be a long process that produces the
same result.
Second, a two-stage primary would
come at twice the cost of the current system. However much it costs to hold a
primary election now, would have to be doubled when the second-stage of the
election occurs.
 |
| Voting (pic2) |
Third, in a two-stage primary,
the people who vote in stage two may not outnumber the people who voted in
stage one. That would create a situation where a smaller group’s preference is
foisted upon the second group.
While the drawbacks of the
two-stage voting system must be seriously considered, the benefits could be
revolutionary. Candidates with little fundraising skill, but a great message,
would hear feedback from the electorate that their message is being heard.
Voters would no longer have to look into their crystal ball to determine which
nominee would stand the best chance in the general election and weigh that
presumption against their favorite choice.
That being said, though, of the
two solutions that I have proposed to fix the Republican primary process—one that
seems to routinely produce uninspiring nominees, changing the debates is
probably the easiest—and less expensive—fix.
4 comments:
having read this entry and part one, i am inclined to agree with you that option 1 is the simplest method of reform as opposed to option 2. the sound-byte debates are, at times, a glorified version of The Dozens, minus "mama jokes" and stuff. not productive nor entertaining to me.
Joe,
I wouldn't think that anything Chris Matthews says is true these days. What does that mean? That we are all some Nazi troopers listening and falling in line to our Hitler king maker Rush Limbaugh? I cannot stand Matthews. He is intellectually vapid, a bully, and a man-child who rarely gets challenged like he should.
Anyways, the only way this two stage voting could work is if you held all the primaries at the same time rather than this long, drawn out primary season. I think this timing thing is everything. The reason why you and I did not get to vote for Giuliani is that the earlier states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida already did the nominating for the entire party. It's silly and ridiculous to let a few select states pick our nominee before we ever get a voice. If there was a way to have all the primary voting on the same day earlier in the year with this two stage process, that would be ideal.
I like both of your ideas. With the debates earlier in the year and the national two stage primary held around April or May, that would produce the most qualified and electable candidate to beat our opponents. What do you think?
I'm confused. Isn't it fairly apparent that the majority of primary voters want, above all, to win the general election? If I'm correct, then, the current system does seem to produce the primary voters' preferred choices. They chose McCain in 2008, e.g., because they thought he had the best chance to become President. They'll make the same calculation this time and likely end up with Romney or Perry.
http://blkandred.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-exchange.html
Post a Comment