In Defense of Unfair Primaries

Looks like the New York Times is the latest to argue for a revamped primary process. This talk is based on a common complaint that comes up every year: Why do Iowans and New Hampshirites get do decide who the party nominates? Why not me? New Yorkers and Louisianans deserve an equal vote.

Two new processes have been proposed to make the system more fair:
1) Divide the states into regional blocs. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. Rotate the order of the blocs each election cycle.
2) Divide the states into blocs based on population. All states in the bloc vote on the same night. The small-state blocs vote before the large-state blocs.

And that's all well and good. The first plan would introduce a new kind of caprice into the process, since the nomination could hang on which regions come early in the rotation for that election year. But it's harly less capricious than the current system.

More importantly, these new processes, and the complaint of unfairness upon which they are founded, miss the point of what a primary should be designed to do. "One man, one vote" is a fundamental principle of a democratic election, it is true. But these are not elections to office, they are merely contests for nomination, in which the U.S. government plays no active role. Therefore, a different principle than "one man, one vote" applies in this instance: freedom of association.

These are parties, not governments. If you believe that your party should do everything lawful, honorable, and honest in its power to win the presidential election and elect someone who generally agrees with your positions on the issues, you should also believe the party should set up primaries to do the following:
1) Minimize party infighting and unify the party around a candidate.
2) Maximize the likelihood that the the winner of the primaries will beat the nominee of the opposing party.
3) Generate fanfare and excitement about the process, the party, the choices, and the nominee.

The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries accomplish these objectives very, very well. By holding them in relatively conservative states, the party increases the likelihood of a moderate, electable candidate. The early primaries do an incredible job of narrowing the field and fostering unity absolutely as soon as is practical. And whatever you say about the Iowa caucuses, you can't say they don't produce a truly incredible amount of fanfare.

I don't see the new proposals accomplishing these objectives as well. Particularly, the regional-bloc solution would do a horrible job of uniting the party, and could even splinter it (informally, of course). Plus, it makes no sense to have NY, MA, and ME making the first choice -- ever. As much as I'm an Edmund Muskie fan, it makes no sense from here on out. The population-bloc proposal would give excessive sway to libertarian states, to the disadvantage of the sort of populist campaign (or even establishment campaign) that normally does better. By having lots of states making different decisions at the same time, the party would be reducing the chance of unity and increasing the chances of a brokered convention -- historically very divisive and opaque ways of making nominations.

The current process is not perfect. Especially after this cycle, it's clear it needs tinkering. The front-loading and early-February clumping need to go, and maybe the parties should introduce some rotation into the schedule. Minor changes to keep it fresh without messing too much with what works.

I live in Montana, and I'm a Democrat. I vote at the butt end of the primary season: June 3, the same as South Dakota. My vote will mean less than my emails to comments@whitehouse.gov. Yes, the primary calendar is unfair. I just care more about electing a Democrat.