Republican Party Synthesis Essay
The current process of selecting nominees is one that is flawed for a number of reasons, with lack of consistency being the main reason for the flaws. While the Democratic Party assigns its delegates proportionally, the Republican Party has its assignment of delegates vary by state, whether it’s winner-take-all, proportional, or a hybrid system, and the percentage of the popular vote in the state needed to win the delegates also varies by state. This lack of consistency usually leads campaigning efforts by a candidate to be centered around some states more than others, and possibly ignoring states completely. If states feel left out by a candidate who doesn’t feel a state is necessary for winning the nominee, supporters of that candidate in
…show more content…
that state will be turned away from participating in the primary election, causing a potential drop in what is already a usually low percentage turnout for primary elections in each state. A winner-take-all system is also flawed. The delegate system is supposed to be a national representation of a state’s support for a candidate, support for other candidates goes unrecognized. For example, in the March 22 primary in Arizona, 58 delegates were up for grabs in a winner-take-all environment. Donald Trump received 47.09% of the vote, which ended up being the majority, giving Trump 58 delegates even though more than half of those who voted in the primary didn’t support Trump. The 52.91% of Arizonans who voted for Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or “Other” might as well have stayed home and allowed Trump to receive 100%. [12] This discourages voter turnout for anyone who supports a candidate that may be a definite long shot in a specific state. Another problem is that the primary season spans over months, and usually as the primaries pass, candidates start suspending their campaigns and taking themselves out of the race. This year, the Republican Party had 12 candidates receive votes during the Iowa Primary on February 1, and two months later, the field shrunk to 3. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and John Kasich, who were the three candidates remaining on the ballot after April 1, received a combined 53.82% of the vote and 16 of the 30 delegates for the state. [12] There is no way of knowing who Iowans would have voted for if their Primary took place on March 22 or later. If people’s votes are being wasted if they are voting for people that eventually will drop out, democracy is being compromised since they lost part of their contribution to the selection of who they want to represent them.
The quick fix to enhance democratic principles is to switch the current primary process to one that involves processes of preferential voting, ranking candidates by preference.
The first of the processes to use would be the borda count, which allows voters to rank every candidate and that ranking would assign each candidate a point total. This starts with only 1 point for the lowest ranked candidate on the list, and then the points increase by 1 until the amount of people on the ballot is reached. If there were 4 people on the ballot, the first ranked would receive 4 points, the second highest 3 points, third highest 2 points, and lowest 1 point [5]. The second preferential method used would be an instant-runoff method. Used in several countries and even some American cities for elections of more localized government positions, the instant-runoff once again includes the ranking of candidates in terms of preference. If a candidate receives the majority of first place votes, they are considered the winner, but if the majority isn’t reached, the candidate with the lowest amount of first place votes is removed from the ballot. For the ballots that had the eliminated candidate as a first place choice, their choices move up one spot, meaning that their second preference becomes their top choice. This occurs until a candidate has the majority vote. [9] These methods help to solve the issue of wasted votes and people not wanting to vote because their preferred candidate is unlikely to
win.
that state will be turned away from participating in the primary election, causing a potential drop in what is already a usually low percentage turnout for primary elections in each state. A winner-take-all system is also flawed. The delegate system is supposed to be a national representation of a state’s support for a candidate, support for other candidates goes unrecognized. For example, in the March 22 primary in Arizona, 58 delegates were up for grabs in a winner-take-all environment. Donald Trump received 47.09% of the vote, which ended up being the majority, giving Trump 58 delegates even though more than half of those who voted in the primary didn’t support Trump. The 52.91% of Arizonans who voted for Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or “Other” might as well have stayed home and allowed Trump to receive 100%. [12] This discourages voter turnout for anyone who supports a candidate that may be a definite long shot in a specific state. Another problem is that the primary season spans over months, and usually as the primaries pass, candidates start suspending their campaigns and taking themselves out of the race. This year, the Republican Party had 12 candidates receive votes during the Iowa Primary on February 1, and two months later, the field shrunk to 3. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and John Kasich, who were the three candidates remaining on the ballot after April 1, received a combined 53.82% of the vote and 16 of the 30 delegates for the state. [12] There is no way of knowing who Iowans would have voted for if their Primary took place on March 22 or later. If people’s votes are being wasted if they are voting for people that eventually will drop out, democracy is being compromised since they lost part of their contribution to the selection of who they want to represent them.
The quick fix to enhance democratic principles is to switch the current primary process to one that involves processes of preferential voting, ranking candidates by preference.
The first of the processes to use would be the borda count, which allows voters to rank every candidate and that ranking would assign each candidate a point total. This starts with only 1 point for the lowest ranked candidate on the list, and then the points increase by 1 until the amount of people on the ballot is reached. If there were 4 people on the ballot, the first ranked would receive 4 points, the second highest 3 points, third highest 2 points, and lowest 1 point [5]. The second preferential method used would be an instant-runoff method. Used in several countries and even some American cities for elections of more localized government positions, the instant-runoff once again includes the ranking of candidates in terms of preference. If a candidate receives the majority of first place votes, they are considered the winner, but if the majority isn’t reached, the candidate with the lowest amount of first place votes is removed from the ballot. For the ballots that had the eliminated candidate as a first place choice, their choices move up one spot, meaning that their second preference becomes their top choice. This occurs until a candidate has the majority vote. [9] These methods help to solve the issue of wasted votes and people not wanting to vote because their preferred candidate is unlikely to
win.