A group of political scientists and law professors have recently released a report on how to improve the presidential nominations process for major parties. See it here. It explains the history that between the 1830’s and 1968, major party presidential nominees were determined mostly by political party insiders, especially Governors, members of Congress, and state party chairs. Starting in 1912, a minimum of states used presidential primaries, but the nomination remained in the hands of party leaders, especially in years in which the party did not have an incumbent president running for re-election.
The report strongly implies that the old system worked better, but the authors don’t see a path to returning to the old system. But the authors do recommend stronger party control over the process. They recommend that presidential primary candidates must first undergo a vetting process, in which national parties set up panels to decide whether to recommend candidates or not. The authors approve of the Massachusetts system in which candidates can’t get on a primary ballot without 15% delegate support at a pre-primary party meeting. They also approve of the behavior of the California Democratic and Republican Parties, who regularly hold endorsement meetings before the primary. However, they recognize that it would be very difficult to set up national endorsement meetings.
The authors also recommend a shorter presidential primary calendar, but various experts have been recommending that idea for decades. Only a federal law controlling the primary calendar could make that idea happen.
The authors recommend that presidential primaries select delegates proportionately on a statewide basis, and they criticize the process in some states in which each U.S. House district elects its own delegates. They favor superdelegates. They suggest that parties should choose delegates who are skilled in negotiating ability, in case the presidential decision is made by a brokered convention.
Nothing is said in the report about which voters should be eligible to participate in presidential primaries. But since the authors want stronger party control, the implication of the report is that closed primaries are superior to primaries in which non-members of the party participate.
What’s scientific about political science?
It’s 100% political and 0% science.
“The authors approve of the Massachusetts system in which candidates can’t get on a primary ballot without 15% delegate support at a pre-primary party meeting.”
That only applies to non-Presidential primary candidates. Presidential primary candidates in Massachusetts are chosen by a number of methods, none of which require 15% party convention backing. Typically, voters in Massachusetts have a lot more choices for President on their primary ballots than for other offices.
That may have something to do with the signature requirements in the primary.
Even better than those old systems, I have two words:
“Parliamentary government.”
And two more words:
“Proportional representation.”
Put them together, problem solved. Worried about splinter parties? Adopt a 5 percent hurdle like Germany. Or combine state-by-state single member districts with national proportional representation for both House and Senate which would, for the originalists, leave the equal representation of two senators for each state in place.
Parliamentary governments typically don’t have sufficient separation of power. The executive is not independent of the legislature, and one branch of the legislature usually has an imbalance of power, and isn’t truly bicameral.
PS — PCTS MATH – LAW MAKING
100
>50
50
>> ALL VOTES COUNT
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/15/jd-vance-finalist-trump-vice-running-mate-bio-details/74413134007/
BAAACK TO HAIRY CANDS AS IN 1800S ???
BAAADE FOR SHAVING BIZ ???
—
PS — PCTS MATH – LAW MAKING
100
>50
50
<50
0
TOTAL VOTES / TOTAL MEMBERS = EQUAL VOTES TO ELECT EACH LEGISLATOR — ALL VOTES COUNT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Vance
VANCE WIKI — SEMPER FI
BIT LUCKY TO HAVE SURVIVED THE FAKE 2003 IRAQ/AFGHAN WARS
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS
APPROVAL VOTING — PENDING CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT
RFK Jr. is getting Secret Service https://x.com/KarluskaP/status/1812926318251491581
Walter? I don’t fetishize the constitution, including the “division of powers,” which you can’t do absolutely anyway.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=144517
VANCE – ELECTION DENIER — NOOOO SURPRISE ???
WHO WILL COUNT THE 12 AMDT EC VOTES ON 6 JAN 2025 ???
Kennedy should turn down the secret assassin enablers.
Dear AZ bot:
Kamala is a Cop will count those votes. Who else would?
HOW MUCH PRESSURE AMONG COMMIES [ESP IN GERRYMANDER CONGRESS] TO GET BOTH BIDEN AND KAMELA O-U-T ???
RFKJR / HILLARY C ??? HILLARY C / RFKJR ???
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/09/bidens-support-on-capitol-hill-hangs-in-the-balance-as-democrats-meet-in-private/74341561007/
UNHAPPY COMMIES IN DC RE BIDEN
1968-1988 DONKEY EFFORTS TO GET P.R. IN CONV DELEGATES >>> BILL CLINTON IN 1992, OBAMA IN 2008, ETC
Taking away control from the electorate and giving it to party establishment. Shortening the primaries. Replacing proper delegates with super delegates and proportionally representative delegates.
…Is this “group of political scientists and law professors” by any chance Democratic National Committee? Because these recommendations follow the trajectory that the Democratic Party has been on for decades now, removing all influence by and accountability to voters.
What a parade of terrible ideas, each one worse than the last. And the only good idea – closed primaries – is inferred by Richard, not posited by the authors. The exact opposite of their suggestions should be implemented to improve the presidential nominations process.
What’s scientific about political science? Nothing!
Political “scientists” are about guaranteed to produce the exact opposite of good solutions.
Everything that’s wrong and way too political about popular science is way worse with political pseudoscience.
I read through some of the document and skimmed through the rest. The argument being made is that voters are stupid, easily manipulatable, and prone to elect extremists. This is all true. However, the proposed solution to this is to essentially ditch democracy and move to an oligarchy by having party bosses choose our leaders, with the implication being that party bosses are less stupid, less manipulatable, and less prone to elect extremists.
Democracy has its problems, but oligarchy is so much worse. The solution to the cited problems shouldn’t be hand control over to others but to upgrade our democracy. Legislators should be elected using proportional representation in multi-member districts. Executives should be elected using consensus voting methods (like Approval Voting, Range Voting, or STAR Voting).
Your idea is retarded.