The current presidential primary system is a problem. Most political observers have recognized this fact. Many American voters, however, have not.

The current primary system was first used in 1972 (following the unruly and riotous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago). The politics and history behind its creation are worthy of their own series of blog posts which I plan to write in the future. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that America, both parties, and our world have changed dramatically since the days of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, and Hubert Humphreys.

Voters

American voters do not pay attention to the intricacies of election laws the way political elites do. They do not fixate on polls or track candidates like Nate Silver.

Voters are largely interested in political outcomes. Unfortunately, the process of getting there is routinely lost on a large portion of the electorate. Case in point: The 2020 Democratic Party primaries.

The 2020 Democratic Party electorate was bombarded with information from a throng of candidates replete with campaign funds and volunteers. This became problematic when the primary calendar from 1972 provided much needed momentum for some candidates and not others. Debate moderators limited the ability of candidates to make a national impression and campaigns became partially subject to the results of two small states.

Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire have subsequently enjoyed an over-sized role in deciding who represents the two major political parties in US elections solely due to their being front-loaded on the election calendar. These two states are not representative of every segment of the American electorate.

As a result, the 2020 Democratic primary gave a disproportionately large role to white liberals in a party dominated by minority voters who generally tend to support a different candidate. Iowa’s small number of delegates is much more important than those of larger states which occur weeks and months later. The momentum provided by Iowa and New Hampshire killed some aspiring campaigns while propelling others.

The calendar worked against some types of candidates. It worked against some segments of the party’s voters. It worked against some of the major players under the party’s umbrella. The same has also happened in Republican Party primaries in years past.

Reform

Major reform seems inevitable now. The debacle following the Iowa caucuses, which led to a long reporting delay, probably ensured that. But what does reform look like?

Overreaction could be worse than inaction. The current system does have some benefits. It breaks up state contests into a more manageable time period for campaigns not as financially blessed as others. It helps political outsiders. Candidates are forced to meet with voters in much more intimate settings. Throwing out the system in its entirety would be a terrible error.

America of 1968 to 1972 may have needed this. That America was different. Let us not fall prey to an overreaction when updating this system. Creating a national primary may cause more problems than currently plague our country.