By Robert G. Boatright, Professor of Political Science at Clark University
The United States is one of the few countries in the world that uses primary elections to select party candidates for nearly all state and federal offices. Although primaries may seem like a democratic way to choose nominees, they introduce an element of randomness into elections that can produce undemocratic outcomes. This happens for three reasons.
First, voter turnout in primary elections is remarkably low. In the current election cycle, only 23 percent of eligible voters participated in the primaries. As I argue in my recent book, The Problem with Primary Voters, this low turnout means that primary voters are not representative of the broader electorate, or even of their own parties' voters.
Moreover, nearly half of those who vote in a given primary election cycle did not participate four years earlier. This makes it difficult for candidates to gauge public opinion based on the voters who turn out in their primaries, even if they attempt to do so.
Second, in most states, primary elections are decided by a plurality of the vote rather than an outright majority. In multicandidate primaries, which are common when no incumbent is running, this means that a candidate can win the nomination even though they might have lost a head-to-head contest against another candidate in the same race.
Some reform advocates have proposed ranked-choice voting or other methods designed to ensure that winning candidates have broad support. Opponents of these reforms, however, argue that such systems can confuse voters.
Third, changes to campaign finance laws in the United States have had particularly harmful effects on primary elections. The rise of super PACs, organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on elections as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates, has heightened incumbent legislators' fears of losing their primaries if they engage in bipartisan compromise.
In general elections, voters often choose between political parties. In primaries, however, voters lack that party distinction as a guide, which may give campaign spending greater influence.
It takes only a small number of races in which incumbents are defeated by more politically extreme primary challengers to discourage other legislators from breaking with party orthodoxy or taking positions that might antagonize major donors.
When primary elections were introduced in the United States more than a century ago, some of their opponents warned of precisely such consequences. Nevertheless, primaries spread rapidly, partly because they were presented as a way to curb corruption and give ordinary citizens a greater voice in politics.
Although primaries have not necessarily achieved these goals, they have proved remarkably resilient. Efforts by states to limit their use have repeatedly encountered opposition from voters.
Primary elections undoubtedly add excitement to American politics. Yet few of the countries regarded as the world's most democratic have shown much enthusiasm for adopting the American approach to selecting political candidates.
