The introduction of primary elections to nominate candidates to public office yielded some fairly important unintended consequences. In general, primary elections have reduced the influence of the party organizations when it comes to nominating candidates. First off, the primaries are conducted according to state law, which gives less power to the party organization. The political party has relatively little say about how things work. Secondly, the purpose of introducing the primary system was to give more power to rank-and-file members of the party, rather than party leaders. Because of this, the party cannot reward supporters by nominating them for office. And because rank-and-file members pick the nominee, it is possible that unpopular members of the party, most likely those hostile towards party leaders, will get nominated.
Campaign finance reform is another area in which partisanship can be affected. I think it’s important to note here that the Republicans seriously opposed any major changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Mainly this is because Republicans notoriously were known for surpassing the Democrats in campaign funding. But, nonetheless, these reforms have banned the parties from raising and spending soft money on behalf of the candidates. They are only allowed to use hard money, contributed by Political Action Committees and individuals. This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate.
Efforts for reforming elections, introducing primaries and regulating campaign finance, have both been used to eliminate factions from American elections. While I agree with the attempt to “equal the playing field”, especially regarding campaign finance, I’m forced to believe that all factions cannot be removed from the American election process. There will always be someone or some group that can find loopholes in the legislation and use those to benefit their own interests. That being said, if it were possible to eliminate all factions from American elections, I don’t think we would want to. It would be a lot of work and involve a ton of oversight over the parties and their candidates. I don’t think it would be possible to regulate everything in the American election system. There’s just simply too much. And on top of that, there’s no guarantee that it would all work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you have said. Regulating the election and political process would not be very democratic now would it?
ReplyDeleteNice post!v
I think you are correct about not wanting to eliminate factions. Beyond the logistics of it (again, you are correct, geographically and electorally our nation is far too large), think about what the country would turn into. We would be "subjects" in an authoritarian system where we get to vote, but the only people on the ballot would be candidates from the ruling party.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this would be what happened recently in Russia. Vladimir Putin was term-limited so he decided to see to it that his hand-picked successor was elected President, and then he was chosen as Prime Minister. The International Herald Tribune categorized the election as a "culmination of Putin's efforts to consolidate control over the government, business and the news media since taking office eight years ago."
You said that "This reform alone seriously damaged a party’s capability to support a candidate." 2008 was the most expensive general election, for both parties, in history. Obama raised money in epic proportions. Given that so much money is coming from small donors, is it really true that parties cannot support a candidate, or that a candidate should support his or herself?
ReplyDeleteI think at the time of FECA, it really did damage a parties capability to support it's candidate, especially in regards to soft money.
ReplyDeleteThis past election is a good example of how independent candidates have become. Obama raised a lot of money on his own by relying on small donations from many Americans. It has become easier for candidates to raise their own money, and not have to rely on financial support from the party. Parties currently have less of a roll in campaign finance than they used to.