Welcome to the third and final instalment of the primaries project as serious how we nominate presidential candidates. Last week we looked at the real world consequences of our primary system and the week before that we examined how it came to be, if you haven't heard either of those episodes. Yet you may want to check them out first, this week we're looking at how this system could be different. Here we go in roll call, Jefferson Hancock, items be John or Sun, Henry Patrick. I marry president of the convention. George Washington. The flaw is your: that's Timothy bats. Are you tumor and high school? history teacher in New York, taking us back to the summer of seventeen. Eighty seven during a more than three month long debate known today as the constitutional convention lots.

I'm has come to review and sign all constitution. The founders argued over how the United States would be governed. They disagreed over matters of representation, including how enslaved people would be counted, how many representatives each state would get and some delegates refused sign without a bill of rights. What need that isn't here? Well, the requested specific protections on individual freedoms of speech, religion, assembly- save them in that we might I add a bill of rights later does any even with all this drawn out debate and the addition of a bill of rights. There were men me things. The framers left out entirely, for example, parties when the founders road institution, they didn't believe in parties. That's Larry sabotage, director of the University of Virginia Centre for politics. In fact, the founder They didn't believe in popular politics and why

bread voting and, of course, since the framers didn't believe in formalizing parties, they had no reason to design a system for parties to choose candidates to run in general elections, commonly known as primaries. Many constitutions have that an article about the operation of politics but, of course, the United States, doesn't without a primary system laid out in the constitution. Parties have been have to design whatever process they want, and they have and since the process is in the constitution, that means the parties themselves could also change it pretty easily. That is if they thought it

needed improvement over the last two episodes. We talked about how accidental our primary system it and how flawed in this episode were wondering if other places do it better, and come to think of it. What does better even meet Well, this is a very good question: Gideon Rihanna Professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jurists There must be common ways to argue that the most democratic system is the most participatory system. Our system is very participatory

We believe that we have a democratic process right where democracy shall we should have a say, and we don't really get to deepen the into the weeds about how that democracy works. As long as people are voting, then that's democracy, HANS, nor the political scientist who help develop the party decides theory. Most people, quite understandably, don't spend all of their time. Thinking about the implications of different democratic institutions. They just want to see democracy happening and primary a great way to see democracy happening knows point is that a democracy isn't well functioning. Just because for our voting, as we heard in the last episode, although we have a very open system in the United States, it doesn't necessarily lead to a public consensus or good governance. The design of this system is keep. I would say that democracy is about checks and balances

the involvement of different institutions with different level of inclusiveness- and this is all where does the american way of thinking about democracy? This is the way that the founding fathers has established. You're too you're a very complicated regime. And were hot has laid out a rubric to help judge how democratic candidates selection system it? According to raw, there are four key components: the first is inclusiveness or how open the process is to the general public. The second

is competition. How hard do politicians have to work to be nominated or renominated? The third is responsiveness. Has this system chosen, politicians who govern according to the will of the people and the fourth and final is representative nets? Has the system resulted in a governing body that were lacks the population of a country to understand what all this means- inaction we're going to explore how different countries around the world now many their candidates. Let's begin, world tour in Norway is unless be amended activity. The bothy Amicia Heretic off the frog Samantha blessed with the US to think that officially gun in ITALY, but in less than a throughout the union, Way party leaders choose which candidates will run so the parties control all aspects that room Karlsson. A professor at the university

of all slow the voters and though say they just have to vote for the list that the party has decided upon, so that makes it quite exclusive that gets. It were hot first component for judging how democratic candidates election system is, who takes part, probably the most in need one is the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of this electorate. This electorate is the group of people that chooses are parties, Lee for example. In the: U S, it's the people who vote in primaries and Caucasus. The electorate is the people who choose between those candidates in the general election and in some way it is. This electorate is very, very, very exclusive. It's the party leader! That's lacks the candidates for parliament

Ok in Norway, the selector it is about as exclusive as it gets in the. U S, it's very inclusive, and all of this affects how candidates behave the more inclusive this electorate is the more individualistic player. The candidate would be and the more explosive this electorate be the more he or she. With the parties and players, so the can It's in Norway do not run personality driven campaigns; they do not focus that much on themself. They say that the most important thing for my campaign is to get focus for, the party in the: U S, campaigns are more candidates, centric and Inter party conflict can get messy and personal there and Let's later it was game on Lillian Castro, in the middle of a health care discussion taking on video swipe at Joe Biden going there on the question of by

Are you? Are you forgetting what you said about it in Norway. On the other hand, there is no incentives for four four candidates to campaign against each other. It's important to note, though, that countries like Norway have many parties? So while there is little fighting within parties, if voters are politicians, dont, like the direction of law, Party, they have numerous other options to choose from in the: U S, if you dont, like the direction of one party for the most part you only have one other option, Norway an extreme example, but there are also candidate selection systems that are more exclusive than the: U S, while not being quite as exclusive as Norway. Election counts are full tilt, sorting, counting adjudicating

in the Republic of Ireland. The final decision is taken by a vote of the party members. That's Teresa reading a political scientist at university college cork, Norway. It's the party leaders who are selecting the candidates, while in Ireland its generally open to all party members, party membership requires paying fees, attending meetings and working for the party. In other words, these people are clearly invested in the parties goals. Membership is actually quite low. In Ireland, it's one of the lowest in Europe. In fact, only about three percent of the country belongs to a party so about a hundred forty five thousand people in a country of almost five million, and what does this mean for the people who are nominated? It means parties, electors. The members of political parties play

really crucial role in shaping the choices that the arrest of the electorate are faced with when they go in and get their ballot paper, so they really do a pre screening process. Almost every democracy on the planet has a more exclusive candidates. Elections. System than the. U S, but there is one country that may be even more open. We one iota videos out of business and went out at that transmission. It is yet another example: we gotta container, but a bullet bacon s it accelerated, vs, IE toy with Argentina has a national primary system. It's an acronym bustle which stands for Romania's IVF best simultaneously obligatory us. That's piano, see about us the chair of the politics, International Affairs Department at Workforce University and the associate director of the latin American Latino Studies programme here, Argentina's Paso system means obligatory open Simon. Yes, primaries, which is to say that

a single party in Argentina has to do primaries. For every single level of office in every Argentine has to vote in those primaries So this is an extreme form of democratization as the Argentines pose it, but at the same time it disadvantages and those disadvantages, can similar to some of the ones we see in the United States there, Sir is the kind of person his factionalism populism from the bottom, to the top of the argentine political system that we ve about as a more general problem of primary systems in the world and, of course, the more inclusive the selector aunt when aid comes to a very large sum electorates. It's very hard for challenges to compete unless they have a lot of money, of course,

and that brings us to the next component for judging a candidate selection system, which is competition, competition is key because without it you don't really have a democracy. There's no decision to make. I don't think people realize how significant Canada election. Is it significant because many times the selector is really the elector meaning if the general election is not competitive? Who the candidate is is the only decision that matters? That's not often the case in presidential elections in the? U S, but it is often the case in congressional. Actions like rethink, think of United States. You know any good election. Ten percent of our seats are actually competitive. That means but the bodies choosing the candidates. Really choosing the representatives it may seem, like open primaries, would be the most competitive system since end

one can run and the public gets to vote. But that's not necessarily the case. Primaries give advantage to incumbents too we have a lot of money and incumbents usually have a lot of money. Convincing the public to vote for you in a primary can be very expensive, putting premium a name, recognition and ability to fund raise that can decrease the world of possible contenders and decrease competition. Actually many times There would be more competition in the more so electorates, the it's hard for political scientists to measure how competitive candidates election system truly is. But one way to do it is by looking at often non incumbents will solve finance. I neither should the way soundness of thin came at once. In a study of israeli parties were hot found that closed systems

are actually more competitive than primaries. When party leaders make up this electorate both More non incumbents win and more candidates are able to compete. The next dimension of our HANS rubric is responsiveness which gets at what politicians do once there in office So in terms of responsiveness, we asked the question okay, so the candidate was select them, then they elected and the We of course assume that he or she they want to be restored back then than reelected again, so, who are the masters to whom are they responsive to whom our day accountable in the? U S, the primary electorate represents a very small and often skewed segment of the american public. So politicians are accountable to that group of people, but they're not only responsive to those voters there also responsive to their donors and the media.

Another darling of the Tec World is due to judge. We found donations to his campaign for networks. The eel repays things interest Theo, you more closed systems. Politicians are first and foremost responsive to their parties, goals again ready on the irish system individually, members of parliament very rarely actually go against or vote against their their parties and parties tend to take discipline fairly seriously, the and very often will suspend or even expel members of parliament for for voting against the party. There isn't a strong incentive to pander to outside interests, because it's a small

group of party members that will determine whether you get nominated were renominated in thinking about responsiveness. It's important to keep in mind the campaign financed laws are a major component in determining how parties prioritize policies in Ireland Party finances so restricted at its. It's not really useful. To think about parties is as responding to the preferences of of donors, parties who are guided by their popularity. So, in the irish context a candidates nomination prospects are in the hands of the party and the parties. Responsiveness to moneyed interests is limited to restrict campaign finance laws. So very often the the parties we will seek to enhance their popularity and with the floating voter, with the link with the largest percentage of the electors, add that they possibly can at last.

We reached the final stage of our hearts for point rubric. Representative ness. This one is pretty straightforward: does this system select people who are representative of the larger populations? Demographics? Take gender, for example, when the parties are involved, There is more representation, at least in terms of fur gender. Can I be prime minister in another, absolutely phenomenal dunker? The lady is not turning in the? U S, even with open primaries, this electorate does not necessarily choose people who are like them. Here's Jonathan Hopkins, a professor of comparative politics at the London School of Economics. If we look at whose in Congress who gets like depressed, and generally men generally white generally wealthy Rights

thing, there's much more of a kind of premium on personal wealth and fitting into very mainstream establishment kind of image. In the? U S, their interest groups in both parties that are focused on trying to diversify their candidates in terms of gender and, to a lesser extent, race. Here's representative, Elise too far. I think we're to encourage nontraditional candidates to run for office, which is why I focus specifically on recruiting women on recruiting hispanic candidates on recruiting African Americans in Indonesia, see. We're parties are more hands on in choosing candidates. They can enjoy diversity in a way american parties can't good evening for weeks, we watched the politicians sluggish out together tonight. At last, we hear the voters verdict, as they tell us, who is one Britain one example of this hands on approach in ninety. Ninety seven Tony Blair of the Labour Party wanted to have many more women in the british parliament, so what he did

is that in districts in which he didn't have any incumbents, They ran all women, shortlist, meaning that four or so women candidates competing for the candidates. The Labour party in the electoral district, If they did, it allow men to compete. Only women in this way. Made sure that women would be selected and then elected in Europe. I think there is much more likelihood that you can make a political career women and, if you offer wealthy background, if you have no particular financial resources of your own in the same study of israeli parties, we mentioned earlier real hot, also found that exclusive says don't result in more women being nominated than inclusive ones. In nineteen sixty eight when democratic activists began the process,

of changing how we nominate candidates in America. They were focused primarily on how inclusive our primary system is, but that's just one dimension of a well functioning democracy and when you judge our system by things like responsiveness, competition or representative ness, it doesn't get great marks. So, at the end of each interview we did for this project. We asked the experts we spoke with if you could create a candidate selection system in the United States from scratch. What would it look like? Let's begin with Gideon Raw HOT, who prefers a multi step process, I came to the conclusion that the most democratic system would actually be a system that would allow difference. Electorates will take part in candidate selection that is

I would allow the small body of the party to screen candidates. Then I will allow a wider audience is like party members or even party supporters to select from short list that poverty has the screened that somewhat more to the system that a lean came Ark? The author of the book primary politics proposed? It would be a hybrid between the party leaders and the voters in the perfect system. I would have the Caucasus the democratically, so the republican caucus in the Congress all deliver a vote of confidence in the presidential Candidates Party

Peters would ultimately endorse three candidates in I'll. Just have them have three choices and say: yes, senator so and so, and governor so and so and former defence secretary. So, and so they all have the temperament and the background to be present. The United States for those vote of confidence wouldn't be binding. I would then let the voters go ahead and vote in primaries and elect delegates to the conventions, but they would have been for warned that some people they their pay,

Earth think could be good president's and other people, their peers, think could not be re idea of a middle ground between an open and closed system was popular among the academics. We talk to. Actually the super delegates are, I think, a good voice in the party and to restrict their voice bore. Probably is not the best decision, that's Barbara, nor under professor in the school of government and public policy at the University of Arizona. Super delegates can give sort of the experts opinion- and that goes along with the popular opinion that you get through the primary soap. Giving both kind of elements of some influence is important Their proposal for trying to achieve balanced was something along the lines of going back to the

old pre nineteen sixty eight system, here's HANS and all I would try to critic party convention where, instead of the delegates at that convention being instructed by voters how they're supposed to vote instead sale, it's less create a representative democracy where you get a diverse set of people who represent all the different factions within the party and then let them negotiate and choose a party leader. Five thirty eight contributor and Marquette University political scientist. Julia Azeri is also on board with relying more heavily on a convention process, but she stressed it would only work. Voters became more involved with our parties, it would sort They involve a total revolution of political society. In some way, in order for a convention to work like a representative democracy convention delegates, we'd have to know what issues voters care about and be accountable to those voters. I think One of the nuts we having cracked is like how to get people interested in party politics when there's no whiskey

at the polls. The machinery. I had a lot of selective benefits for people to be involved in party politics. If you get a job, you can get your view He did some kind of material assistance. You could get that without getting more people involved in the parties, it's possible that only the most extreme views in the party would be represented at this hypothetical convention. The goal of a convention would be to find a consensus, in a party, we actually put out a call to listeners of this very podcast to share their thoughts for re, making the primary system, and they had a different idea about how to find a consensus. I think ring choice. Voting from top to bottom should remain Tori? I think it would be good to go for rank choice method. Instead, the best decision making process is a ranked voting system. This where the most number of people are happy and the compromises

never the lowest common denominator. We heard from a lot of weighing tries a boating fans and for those who art familiar ring, choice voting is where you rank your preferences No candidate has a majority of first choice of votes, the one with the least gets booted and those candidates votes go to the voters. Second, choice that continues until someone has a majority. Ok back to the experts, Caitlin Joint political science, professor at Virginia Attack, also saw a convention system as appealing, but with a big asterisk I'll, see you there system as actually quite reasonable, but I don't think it would whatever fly with the american people, I think we are now in an era where the american people expect too of a direct say in who becomes the presidential nominees, but I

very much recognised that the parties are private organizations and can do this. However, they want dont need to solicit opinions of the american people short of a radical change jus. It supported getting rid of the current sequential cow I would say that I would probably lean towards eliminating carcasses and establishing primaries in all states, and probably lean towards a national primary day, so that all states are voting at once that there is an unequal representation or influence across states authority also wanted to get rid of the calendar, but wasn't quite for a national primary. The calendars bother. For a long time Probably the most practical solution is the sort of regional rotating primary where the real in its vote together and do you switch off? Who goes who goes first or something along those lines,

or, if the regions to vote together? You have a groups of states that cross different regions. We did hear another argument for a national primary though from Kenneth Bear. Former Obama, administration, official and political analysed at international primary be a reform that could really get us out of this sense of individual states that could have more of a say than others. He said it seemed like a reform that could plausibly happen in America, unlike perhaps some of the others in their current. Attacks are where we are now. I think this is a reform, not a radical upheaval and a reform that potentially could lead to more dissipation into the system and may be reduced. Eight some interest in health and our democracy Wayne stage a political science professor from to university, doesn't think national primaries are the way to gamble.

It would be more democratic, but what you going do with the national primary like that and a potential run off, is you're, going to advantage the candidates or nationally known right off the front fond and who can raise money. And so much or non candidates are gonna much of a chance, even in that system and lastly, Peter Sea of ours from Wake Forest University suggested a starting point. Is to standardize our system nationally. If I The design, the system from the bottom up. The first thing: I would do, is established something that does not exist the United States, but that exists in almost every other tomorrow. That I've seen in the world, which is something federal actual commission. We technically have a federal election commission, but it does. Sad election law nationally like it does in other countries, we do that fifty times in the United States, it is state. So my colleagues in Latin America will com is a hey Peter, I'm doing a project on primaries. Can you send me

the primary law. I might we'll get ready for if these files, because, as we got fifty different laws, this is wrong Billy unusual in the world and kind of frankly, a little bit crazy over the coming months. The process we ve been discussing in this series is gonna play out, but or our eyes. The voices of a small number of unrepresentative voters will be empowers here from oil. On the day of the first voting in the campaign, the Isle of pockets is the biggest day so far in presidential politics, entire states may be ignored Ronnie walked away. With more than half of the super Tuesday delegates, he says it's time for his up opponents to stand down cash and personality while likely upstage

running now and at the end of it all, there may not be any clear consensus at all, and so your conscience vote for candidates up and down the ticket. You dont know exactly how the Democrats nominating process will play out. But what we do know is that it doesn't have to be this way. we're at a moment in american history, when dissatisfaction with the political process is rampant and ideas about how to change this system, particularly from the left

about a well designed nominating process, isn't a silver bullet, but it's a key component of a functioning democracy and, as you heard at the beginning of this episode how America chooses its candidates even in the constitution, if the parties wanted to change it, they could just do. So why don't pay that the system as it works now? It would be very hard to change it, because people are thinking that White Party. Innovation is necessarily more democratic. I think they ve been cowed. K mark is referring to the parties. I think they ve been cowed by their activists and I think, there's been a sort of absence of courage on the part of the parties be hard to get used to the idea that there is more to democracy than just voted We need to have really very. How would I say that there should be

crisis. A real crisis. In order to promote a reform of the system rehashed says it would take a dramatic event to get the parties to decide to change and Kay. Arc says that moment may be approaching: remember change happens in party politics, mostly as a result of failure? so We now have a president who could, fail dramatically and twenty twenty and take down a lot of the and governors and state houses with him a big. If that's the case, then I suspect that the reborn republican Party cause there will be a rebirth of the party will take a long look at how it got itself a Donald Trump and may side to start the reform process and, as with the Democrats,

nineteen sixty eight when they kind of fell apart. Ok, when one party starts. Or process. It inevitably has consequences for the other party weather that moment is in twenty twenty four years from now. There will almost certainly again come a time when the parties conclude that something has gone wrong, that they aren't choosing the best candidates. They could then it's time to change the system, but, as we ve learned over the course of this series, a new system doesn't. We me a better system to get that the parties need to be thoughtful. Who are they listening to and why and how are they aggregating all those voices? After all, no less is at stake, then, who will vie to lead the free

the prime this project was reported by me, Galen droop and produced by Jake ARBA Jake Arloeux, also the engineering and scoring are editor was Chadwick Matlin and my ass, we learn did the fact. Checking Tony chow was our technical director especial thanks to Timothy bats, for letting us use his constitutional convention. Video and thanks to you, listeners for listening to the primaries project If you enjoyed it, tell your friends to check it out as well. Also, if you want to learn more about how our primary system works head over to the five thirty eight Youtube Channel, you can get in touch by emailing us at podcast at five thirty, eight dot com. You can also, of course, treated us with questions are common.

If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in the apple pie, cast store or again tell someone about us. Thanks for listening and we'll see you soon