Assess the Advantages and Disadvantages of Primaries and Caucuses Flashcards
What are the Disadvantages of Primaries and Caucuses?
1) They are dominated by extreme voters
2) They have an exceptionally low turn out
3) Dominated by the wealthiest candidates
4) They are too long frontloading (When an increasing number of States schedule primaries/caucuses earlier in the process)
What are the advantages of Primaries and Caucuses?
1) They are highly democratic
2) They are good at showing who the best candidates are
Why is having Primaries and Caucuses dominated by extreme voters considered a disadvantage?
The members of the electorate who turnout to primaries and caucuses are generally old, white, educated, affluent and ideological, therefore they are unrepresentative of the whole electorate.
Donald Trump was able to win the 2016 Republican primaries due to being popular with old, white, Christian voters.
More centrist candidates are under pressure to appeal to these ideological voters, therefore they may become more extreme in their views.
Mitt Romney became more extreme in the 2012 primaries
What is the significance of primaries and caucuses being dominated by extreme voters?
Undermines pluralist democracy and may promote elitism.
May lead to a candidate being selected who may infringe on the civil rights of minorities, such as Donald Trump.
May put off minority voters, causing apathy and low turnout.
Why is having a low turnout to primaries and caucuses disadvantageous?
Only 30% of the voting age population were involved in the
2008 primaries.
The 2008 Iowa caucus had a record turnout for a presidential
caucus which was about 8 times the average, but even then
turnout was only 16.3%
What is the significance of low voter turnout in Primaries and caucuses?
Gives the winner a lesser mandate, thus less legitimacy and authority
Undermines the democratic advantages of the primaries
How is having Primaries and Caucuses dominated by the wealthiest candidates disadvantageous?
It is necessary to raise a lot of money in order to create momentum for the very long and costly campaigns caused by frontloading.
In the 2007 invisible primary Hillary Clinton raised $90 Million and Obama $70 Million
In 2000, Liz Dole only raised $4.6 Million in the Invisible primary and was forced to withdraw before the New Hampshire primary.
What is the significance of Primaries and caucuses being dominated by the wealthiest candidates?
Unfair on less wealthy candidates.
Means that less wealthy members of the electorate are less represented.
Could be seen as corrupt, leading to political apathy.
Why are Primaries and Caucuses disadvantageous as they are too long (due to frontloading)
The number of state holding their primaries or caucuses before the end of March increased from just 11 in 1980 to 42 in 2008, and those 42 states included the 8 largest states.
This means that the winner of the primaries may have been decided before certain states get to vote.
By February 5th 2008, 55% of delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions had already been chosen.
(Frontloading is when an increasing number of states schedule their presidential primaries or caucuses earlier in the presidential nomination process.)
What is the significance of Primaries and Caucuses being too long due to frontloading?
Leads to “permanent campaigns” that alienate voters and result in low turnout.
Puts too much stress on early, unrepresentative states, which is undemocratic and unfair.
Leads to exhausted candidates, which may put off voters.
How are Primaries and Caucuses highly deomocratic?
Primaries are highly democratic devices compared to the earlier selection processes involving choices made by party bosses in “smoke filled rooms”.
Primaries involve the voters themselves (especially open primaries) making their own choices as to their preferred candidate.
This opens up the nomination process to outsiders who wouldn’t have been chosen by the party bosses, such as Jimmy Carter (1976), Bill Clinton (1992) and Barack Obama (2008).
Why is the highly democratic nature of Primaries and caucuses significant?
Upholds the principle of a government for the people, of the people, by the people.
Reduces the chance of corruption by party bosses in “smoke filled room”, which could alienate voters and cause political apathy.
Upholds pluralist democracy
What is a rebuttal to the argument that Primaries and Caucuses are highly deomocratic?
The electorate may just pick the candidate who is in the lead (the bandwagon effect) or the candidate who looks the best (the style over substance effect), therefore they may not choose as suitable a candidate as the party bosses could have chosen.
How are Primaries and Caucuses good at showing who the best candidates are?
Primaries weed out unsuitable candidates for the presidency.
They test the candidates’ stamina on the long campaign trail and their fund-raising and oratorical skills, all of which are important qualities for a potential president.
In 2008, many suggested that Obama was a stronger candidate because of his long, gruelling primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
Why is the argument that Primaries and Caucuses are good at showing the best candidates significant?
Means a more suitable nominee can be chosen who will be more likely to win the election.
The candidate is more likely to be a better president who will make better policy decisions.
