So it appears almost certain that Drumpf is going to be the next Republican Presidential Candidate in spite of his party’s wishes. For many, his candidacy represents the joke that US primaries have become. Drumpf shows that if you can lay your hands on enough money (even if it’s mostly self-financed), you’re in with a good shot. And even if your party hates you, if you can win the prolonged popularity contest that is the primaries, you’re set. Lack appropriate experience? It hardly matters—voters are likely to go for the name they recognise.

Of course, if you’ve read any of my other entries, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to discover that these problems are not new, with a report on primaries in 1898 documenting these exact issues. If the system has been so flawed from the beginning, we must ask ourselves why the US turned to the system in the first place

Strangely, at the time I began writing this article, my next words were going to be something along the lines of “I’m going to focus on the primaries, as the National Convention is a rather outdated institution, having become largely a ceremonial affair.” Of course, having written that, there are now articles floating around proposing that under the right circumstances, the Republicans may be able to shaft Trump at the last minute at the National Convention, something to keep an eye out for (and maybe another easy follow-up for a post in July!).

Either way, the US primary is a measure by which parties choose their candidate for an election by popular vote, rather than discussion in a caucus (a meeting of party members). This is unusual, as it means (as will likely be the case with Donald Trump) the public can vote in a candidate that a party organisation doesn’t actually want.

So why did parties agree to a system which effectively curbed their own power? We actually played a part in this. In the late 19th century, Australia revolutionised democracy and electoral politics. And then, in that typical ways of ours, proceeded to expunge it from ou history.¹ In essence, it developed the system of the secret ballot, known around the world as “the Australian Ballot”.

Steve on Twitter: “Got my postal vote stuff today and wholly crap it would take a week to read the senate paper. My son is 21mths old pic.twitter.com/v0ig7MTHsR / Twitter”

Got my postal vote stuff today and wholly crap it would take a week to read the senate paper. My son is 21mths old pic.twitter.com/v0ig7MTHsR

Taken for granted today, this method of voting took the world by storm. In particular, it set a new tone for US elections. Although by the middle of the century most elections had already moved on from the older practice of voting by voice, ballots were still highly public and informal affairs, with parties printing their own ballot papers. The abuses of this system were manifold—candidates and parties would print papers that mimicked another party’s in order to steal votes from the illiterate or the simply unwary; many states didn’t have official voter registers, so as communities grew larger, it was easy to slip in a few individuals from out of town; and if all of that failed, with distinctly coloured ballots, it was easy for parties to intimidate voters into either voting their way, or not at all.

So over the next few decades, the US electoral system steadily consolidated into a formal system, with states regulating more and more of the electoral process. Whilst there is a lot of debate over the exact reasons, in essence, having the public participate in the direct election of primaries seemed the next logical step. Furthermore, even though direct primaries effectively limit the power of the parties, they had the advantage of firstly, being popular with the electorate, and secondly, encouraging participation in the nominating system, rather than having parties saddled with unelectable candidates due to backroom dealings.

Curiously, although primaries became the norm for most elected positions, presidential nominations lagged far behind and weren’t largely adopted until the 1960s. Having said that, when the reforms of the presidential primaries finally rolled around, they were in response to a National Convention that exemplified nearly everything wrong with the old system. Shafer describes the Democratic convention of 1952 as “the last of the classic old-style party-gatherings” (p. 33). The story of what took place at that convention is a long one, full of political manoeuvring; but in essence, the people’s favourite, Kefauver, lost to the party favourite, Stevenson. The fact that Stevenson proceeded to lose two subsequent presidential elections was telling, but perhaps most galling for the rank-and-file of the Democrats was that Kefauver had actually won the most primaries before the nominating convention—the issue was that these primaries were known as “beauty pageants” and had no official standing within the Democratic Party.

Nevertheless, the lesson seemed to be learned within the Democratic party and the Republicans soon had to follow suit, as if they didn’t, the candidate could easily be slighted for being a party hack. The reason this is incredibly important in the US system is due to the nature of how elections are won. In the US, elections aren’t won by changing the minds of opposition voters, they’re won by motivating your own voters to get out of the house and actually vote. In this way, primaries are a great tool to get voters emotionally invested in your cause, and appeal to them directly without the moderating influence of party to the point where the party machine can almost be directly bypassed. In fact, when the parties are in a state of disrepute, a candidate can even build their popularity on the back of not being the favourite candidate of one of the main parties.

Academic Sources

Sorry, I admit they’re a little light on this week. There wasn’t as much written about this as I’d expected.

Berg-Andersson, RE 2004, “How did we get here anyway? an historical analysis of the Presidential Nominating Process”, The Green Papers, accessed at: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/NomProcess.html, 23 March 2016. Not an academic source, strictly speaking, but one of the best summaries of the history of the US presidential nominating process

Shafer, BE 1988, Bifurcated Politics: Evolution and Reform in the National Party Convention, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.

Ware, A 2002, The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.