New Statesman has now published the second installment of political scientist Corbin Duncan’s analysis of primaries. This episode presents evidence that political parties choose better nominees in the absence of primaries. He discusses the United States and also the United Kingdom.
Here is a link to Duncan’s article from last week.
Primaries – BAAAAD idea since day 1.
—
ballot access via equal nom pets.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP.
There’s “issues” in that story.
First, on the “framing”? More PUMAs voted for the Schmuck Talk Express in 2008 than Sandernistas did for Trump in 2016, and yet, Obama still won. The data on the 2008 voting is easily available. So, for Duncan to cite 2016 to support his thesis is cherry-picking.
Second? Lack of primaries in a parliamentary system didn’t stop Berlusconi from being elected PM of Italy multiple times. Nor has it stopped Duncan’s own UK from being run by the clown car posse of most the Brexit hardcore among Tories, led by chauffeur Boris Johnson.
The money angle I agree with. In spades. But short of overturning not only Citizens United, but also Buckley, we’re stuck with that here. But the rest of the piece? Kind of self-undercut. The semi-slandering of Corbyn gives up the rest of the gig.
So, nope, not impressed.
Ohh, read the tagline. Duncan is at Harvard now; he really should know better on the 2008 election. And seeing that makes me wonder how much elitism is behind some of this. He’s kind of forgiven for being Aussie. But only a small bit.
@SG,
Corbin Duncan is an undergrad at Harvard. AOC likely knows more about the 2008 election.
The parties should decide whether of not to nominate by primaries, and if they choose to have a primary that is not open to independent voters, they should pay for it.
Jim Riley:
The New Statesman is not a small paper, and per his Twitter, he worked for the Sydney Morning Herald before that, an even bigger media outlet. It’s incumbent upon him as a professional journalist with fairly major outlets to be more informed. (And I told him my first comments on Twitter.)
@SG,
https://about.me/corbinduncan14
This picture is four years old.
@Jim: A young tyke, eh? Well, in that case, we can say he should have a better editor somewhere. But, in the post-2000 newspaper world? Fewer and further between.