Too Much Democracy Is Bad for Democracy

Authors: Jonathan Rauch & Ray La Raja
Title: "Too Much Democracy Is Bad for Democracy"
Context: Discussion on the evolving nominating process of major American political parties and its consequences.
Thesis: The unprecedented power ceded to primary voters is leading to a flawed political nominating system.

The Democratic Party’s decision to allow primary voter participation changed the candidates’ selection criteria.
The 2016 Republican primary illustrated the vulnerability of the party system, leading to unconventional candidates, including Donald Trump.
Democrats modified their rules following the 2016 election, limiting the role of superdelegates to decrease establishment control.

Primaries were not always central to American political processes; their current role is a radical departure from traditional practices.
The transition to primaries began post-1968, prompted by instances such as Hubert Humphrey securing the nomination without entering primaries, which created discontent among rank-and-file party members.
The Democrats of the 1970s rolled out a system of primaries for candidate nominations, which initially seemed to work but retained an informal vetting process called the "invisible primary."

The invisible primary is a pre-selection process where candidates demonstrate viability to party elites, requiring endorsements, media attention, and fundraising capabilities.
This hidden layer ensured that most nominees were experienced politicians with strong ties to their party.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump recognized the fragility of the invisible primary and appealed to voters who distrusted traditional endorsements.
Candidates began bypassing traditional funding avenues, leading to significant shifts in how campaigns were run.

Primary elections, while appearing democratic, often fail to represent voter preferences accurately due to:
- Cognitive limitations of voters, where they may support candidates misaligned with their views.
- Research indicated that primary voters do only slightly better than chance in matching their preferences to candidates.
- Nicolas de Condorcet's mathematical approaches demonstrated the potential failures of majority preference systems.
- Kenneth Arrow proved that no voting system could guarantee consistent majority selections.

The primary process favors candidates who can survive fragmentation instead of those who represent broader coalitions.
Polarization: As the number of candidates increases, the chances for outsider or extremist candidates rise, also leading to chaotic electoral outcomes.
The media's role: While they should critique candidates, they often amplify the visibility of fringe candidates, creating a feedback loop of sensationalism.

Voter dissatisfaction is evident, with only 35% of voters believing that primaries effectively select qualified nominees as of 2016.
Calls for reform are growing, particularly in states that hold later primaries.

The adoption of direct primaries in the Progressive era was viewed as a fairer means of candidate selection but resulted in unintended consequences.
Henry Jones Ford's prescient warning: Direct primaries could shift power to different elites, emphasizing personal promotion over governance capabilities.

Studies show that parties favoring inclusive methods often see decreased representation of women and marginalized groups.
The prevalence of ideological extremes is aggravated when traditional structures are undermined, potentially neglecting broader electoral needs.

Turnout in primaries skews older, wealthier, and more partisan compared to the general electorate.
Those who vote in primaries are often not representative of broader constituents who must ultimately be engaged for successful governance.

Political insiders are critical for evaluating candidates, ensuring adequate governing capabilities for eventual nominees.
Lessons from past presidential nominations show that gatekeeping often prevents unsuitable candidates from gaining traction.

A mixed system allows professional assessment of candidates, balancing activist enthusiasm with necessary governance experience.
Professional insiders can encourage candidates to maintain connections vital for effective governance following election outcomes.

Renewed focus on integrating professional insights into the nominating process, including:
- Reinstituting roles for superdelegates in determining candidacy qualifications.
- Implementing votes of confidence from party leaders before primaries.
- Considering candidates' governmental experience and party contributions during nominations and debate selections.

The notion that more democracy equals better outcomes is flawed when applied to the primary process.
Restore a balance in candidate selection that allows professional perspectives to coexist with voter preferences, ensuring that viable, competent nominees are selected.