Here in Canada, we鈥檙e used to a simple electoral system 鈥� at the provincial and federal level, the party picks their candidates, some independents put themselves forward, and then we choose among them. It may be an unwieldy or even flawed system if you prefer proportional representation, but at least you can explain it in a couple sentences.
South of our border, of course, the Americans have created a different system, one that looks baffling from almost any other country on earth.
The Americans have elections before their elections. This is called the primary system.
If you鈥檙e not familiar with it, almost every state uses government money to organize and run a system that first registers voters as either Democrats, Republicans, or independents. Then more taxpayer money is used, on behalf of political parties which are, ostensibly, private organizations, to let some chunk of those registered voters to vote for their candidates.
If you suggested to the average Canadian that we should use taxpayer money to decide who would represent a party they don鈥檛 even support, you鈥檇 get slapped so hard your grandkids would feel it.
But Americans think this is the most natural thing in the world 鈥� despite it being, for most of the country, of fairly recent vintage.
Through the 18th and 19th century, local candidates and delegates to the national conventions that chose presidential candidates were picked by the parties. This was often done, as Americans will tell you 鈥渋n smoke-filled back rooms.鈥� This seems to be a rote phrase they memorize in school.
In the early 20th century, a reform movement pushed to create primaries. The idea was to put candidate selection out in the open, to further democratize their democracy.
But by 1968, only 12 states used primaries, and a handful used caucuses. Many primaries were still non-binding.
After riots at the Democrats鈥� disastrous Chicago convention, followed by a crushing loss to Richard Nixon, an internal party committee re-wrote the rules for choosing Democratic delegates.
The rules didn鈥檛 specify holding state-run primary elections, but it was the simplest way to satisfy them. So numerous states switched starting in 1972, and because those regulations were imposed on all parties, Republicans found themselves holding primaries too. By 1992, almost every state held either a binding primary or a caucus which served the same purpose.
To my mind, the most negative effect of this is the mass registration of voters into the party system. They aren鈥檛 real, dues-paying party members, but the registration creates a sense of allegiance that, once formed, is hard to break.
I believe that a good chunk of American hyper-partisanship is due to this. In countries where the vast majority of voters are not tied to a party, they feel more free to change their minds. South of the 49th parallel, it鈥檚 鈥淢y party, right or wrong!鈥�
The primary system was meant to create more democracy. In practice, it is a media carnival that reinforces a dangerous tribalism, at taxpayers鈥� expense.
