It has been suggested that primaries were implemented to "diminish the influence of political organizations on political life." This statement reigns true when considering how the primary process diminished the influence of party leaders in selecting who shall receive the nomination of said party. Consider how, in the 2008 primary process for both the Democratic and Republican parties, each side was flooded with competition from heterogeneous America. People represented different constituencies, geographic locations, and even represented generational eras (such as a Joe Biden candidacy compared to that of a Barack Obama candidacy).
Of course, we have to take into consideration the different methods of having a primary, since there are many different ways for a state to determine who shall win. If not a caucus, then either an open primary, or a closed primary (in the past, a blanket primary was not unheard of, but was later ruled unconstitutional). Each possesses their own benefits and downfalls. Take for example the open primary, as we in Wisconsin have come to know and love (or hate). Any person, regardless of party, can vote for either the Democratic or Republican ticket. On the contrary, a closed primary requires that you chose a side, and in many states such a New York, require a stated intention of which party's election you intend to partake in. Regarless of the methods that each state may engage, the end result is the people chosing the candidate that they deem best, whether through a casted ballot, or by raising your hand and forming groups (as seen in the Iowa caucus system). There are plenty of unintended consequences from new rules in recent history. One such example is that of the front-loaded primary season whcih reigned down after January of 2008. States, in an attempt to gain influence in the primary system, began to move their primaries to an earlier date. As time will show, this resulted in one of the greatest debocles in political history, as both Florida and Michigan were penalized for such a move, and was the beginning to the hard fought Democratic nomination that requirted the party to intervene and determine whether or not the moves, and actions thereafter, were legit. The result was both Florida and Michigan being represented and the Democratic National Convention with their delegates on the floor.
Aside from the primaries themselves are questions of how to fund these everlasting campaigns. Current campaign finance regulatory regimes affect partisanship in a multuitude of ways. Take for instance, the influence of 527 groups. These independent organizations who are not as regulated as the candidates to raise money, and spend the cash on issue advocacy. A severe polarizing nature was experienced in 2004, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began attacks on the Democratic nominee John Kerry. There partisan message was so resounding, and their influence so engrained in the electorate, that the term "swift boated" is now a common phrase among political junkies.
Efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulation of money in elections work at cross-purposes. After the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was signed by then President Bush, new regulations were put in place to minimize the influence of money in politics, and to add to the Federal Elections Campaign Act which was signed by President Nixon in the 1970's. Now, not only are there regualtions on money, but also rules p[retaining to how and when campaign advertising can be aired on television prior to an election. The new(er) rules state that advertising cannot be aired 30 days prior to a primary, nor 60 days prior to a general election. This serves many purposes, one being to help the electorate drown in political advertising 365 days out of the year.
Of course, we have to take into consideration the different methods of having a primary, since there are many different ways for a state to determine who shall win. If not a caucus, then either an open primary, or a closed primary (in the past, a blanket primary was not unheard of, but was later ruled unconstitutional). Each possesses their own benefits and downfalls. Take for example the open primary, as we in Wisconsin have come to know and love (or hate). Any person, regardless of party, can vote for either the Democratic or Republican ticket. On the contrary, a closed primary requires that you chose a side, and in many states such a New York, require a stated intention of which party's election you intend to partake in. Regarless of the methods that each state may engage, the end result is the people chosing the candidate that they deem best, whether through a casted ballot, or by raising your hand and forming groups (as seen in the Iowa caucus system). There are plenty of unintended consequences from new rules in recent history. One such example is that of the front-loaded primary season whcih reigned down after January of 2008. States, in an attempt to gain influence in the primary system, began to move their primaries to an earlier date. As time will show, this resulted in one of the greatest debocles in political history, as both Florida and Michigan were penalized for such a move, and was the beginning to the hard fought Democratic nomination that requirted the party to intervene and determine whether or not the moves, and actions thereafter, were legit. The result was both Florida and Michigan being represented and the Democratic National Convention with their delegates on the floor.
Aside from the primaries themselves are questions of how to fund these everlasting campaigns. Current campaign finance regulatory regimes affect partisanship in a multuitude of ways. Take for instance, the influence of 527 groups. These independent organizations who are not as regulated as the candidates to raise money, and spend the cash on issue advocacy. A severe polarizing nature was experienced in 2004, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began attacks on the Democratic nominee John Kerry. There partisan message was so resounding, and their influence so engrained in the electorate, that the term "swift boated" is now a common phrase among political junkies.
Efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulation of money in elections work at cross-purposes. After the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was signed by then President Bush, new regulations were put in place to minimize the influence of money in politics, and to add to the Federal Elections Campaign Act which was signed by President Nixon in the 1970's. Now, not only are there regualtions on money, but also rules p[retaining to how and when campaign advertising can be aired on television prior to an election. The new(er) rules state that advertising cannot be aired 30 days prior to a primary, nor 60 days prior to a general election. This serves many purposes, one being to help the electorate drown in political advertising 365 days out of the year.
Unfortunately, factions will never be purged from American politics. The goals set to level the playing field and level off national elections, no matter how hard we try, is unrealistic. There will always be a loophole to exploit, and a law that can be skirted. The influence of money in politics is unavoidable. The discourse of 527 groups have a profound impact, sometimes greater than the candidate or political party itself. It has come to a point where any further actions may result in an infringement of out freedom of speech. To regulate what one group can say or do is acceptable to a point. However, would we really want to see these factions removed? Probably not. These vary factions that sometimes grant us trouble is what makes the American political system unique unto itself. We live in a country with the "permanent campaign." It is a part of our culture, and whether or not an individual agrees with a certain stance on an issue, that very stance is what makes our country what it is; a participatory democracy of the highest caliber.
Would we want to remove faction from the political process? Is it realistic to assume that there could ever be a "level playing field" between two candidates, even if they both had access to equal amounts of money? Was money what ensured Obama's victory in 2008?
ReplyDelete