WaPo | Julia
Azari is an associate professor and assistant chair in the Department
of Political Science at Marquette University. This is the third op-ed in
a series about how to improve the presidential nominating process.
The
current process is clearly flawed, but what would be better? Finding an
answer means thinking about the purpose of presidential nominations,
and about how the existing system falls short. It will require swimming
against the tide of how we’ve thought about nominations for decades — as
a contest between everyday voters and elites, or as a smaller version
of a general election. A better primary system would empower elites to
bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.
One lesson from the 2020 and 2016 election cycles is that a lot of
candidates, many of whom are highly qualified and attract substantial
followings, will inevitably enter the race. The system as it works now —
with a long informal primary, lots of attention to early contests and
sequential primary season that unfolds over several months — is great at
testing candidates to see whether they have the skills to run for
president. What it’s not great at is choosing among the many
candidates who clear that bar, or bringing their different ideological
factions together, or reconciling competing priorities. A process in
which intermediate representatives — elected delegates who understand
the priorities of their constituents — can bargain without being bound
to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better
reflect what voters want.
0 comments:
Post a Comment