184184 CHAPTER 6|POLITICAL PARTIES
SHOULD PARTIES CHOOSE THEIR CANDIDATES?
One of the facts of life for the leaders of the Democratic and
Republican parties is that they cannot determine who runs as
their party’s candidate for political offi ce. They can encourage
some candidates to run and attempt to discourage others by
endorsing their favorites and funneling money, staff support,
and other forms of assistance to the candidates they prefer. But
in the end, congressional candidates get on the ballot by win-
ning a primary or a vote at a state party convention; presidential
candidates compete in a series of primaries and caucuses.
Political parties don’t always get the nominees that their
leaders want. In the 2010 election cycle, for example, insur-
gent (and Tea Party–backed) candidates Christine O’Donnell in
Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska captured their party’s nomi-
nations for U.S. Senate seats. In Alaska, Miller defeated incum-
bent Lisa Murkowski; in Delaware, O’Donnell won an open seat
contest against a veteran House member, Mike Castle. After
their primary victories, both candidates struggled to justify
extreme positions they had taken in the past. These problems
came as no surprise to Delaware and Alaska Republican state
party leaders, virtually all of whom had favored the losing can-
didates, based on the calculation that they were more likely to
win in the general election. The expectations of the state party
leaders proved correct, as Miller lost in the general election to
a write-in campaign by Murkowski and O’Donnell was defeated
by a little-known Democratic opponent. However, because both
state parties chose their nominees in primaries, state party
leaders had to accept whoever won the primary, even if they
preferred another candidate.
Party leaders cannot force candidates out of a race. In spring
2008, many Democratic Party leaders wanted Hillary Clinton to
end her presidential candidacy as it became increasingly clear
that Barack Obama would win the nomination. Clinton stayed in
the race until the primaries ended, forcing Obama to campaign
aggressively, spend additional campaign funds, and respond to
attacks from the Clinton campaign.
Why not let party leaders pick their candidates? Many schol-
ars have argued that doing so would increase the chances of
getting experienced, talented candidates on the ballot.a After
all, party leaders probably know more than the average pri-
mary voter about who would make a good candidate or elected
offi cial. Plus, party leaders have a strong incentive to fi nd good
candidates and convince them to run—their party’s infl uence
over government policy increases with the number of people
they can elect to political offi ce.
Why, then, do voters in America get to pick party nominees
in primaries? Direct primaries were introduced in American
politics during the late 1800s and early 1900s.b The goal was
explicit: reform-minded party activists wanted to take the
choice of nominees out of the hands of party leaders and give
it to the electorate, with the assumption that voters should be
able to infl uence the choice of candidates for the general elec-
tion. Moreover, reformers believed that this goal outweighed
the expertise held by party leaders.
Here is the trade-off: if party leaders selected nominees,
they would likely choose electable candidates who share the
policy goals held by party leaders. If voters choose nominees,
they can pick whoever they want, using whatever criteria they
like—but there is no guarantee that these candidates will be
skilled general-election campaigners or effective in offi ce.
Of course, our system of primary elections is unlikely to go
away. However, it would be possible to increase the infl uence
that party leaders have over the process. One option would be
to change campaign fi nance laws to increase the importance of
the parties as a source of campaign funds. Another is to cre-
ate a mechanism such as a state or district-level convention
where party leaders could select candidates for a primary—and
making it harder for candidates to get on the ballot without the
leaders’ endorsement.You Decide
In 2012, some Republicans worried that the fi erce fi ght in the
primary elections turned off voters, divided the party, and depleted
campaign funds that would be better spent campaigning against
Obama in the general election.Critical Thinking Questions
- Would a system that gave additional power to
party leaders in selecting nominees generally help
incumbents more than challengers or the reverse? - What kind of nomination procedure would be
favored by insurgent groups such as the various
Tea Party organizations?