We have entered that season of a mid-term election when we begin to sort out the potential candidates for office. Prior to this a huge number of people have thrown their names into the hat as a test to see what kind of response they get. Now we see them pulling out, having determined that their candidacy is not viable for one reason or another.
What will remain is a list of legitimate potential candidates, and finally there will be just a handful. This is true generically; it is also true within a party. The party needs to determine who will represent them in the general elections in November, so a primary election will take place in September to winnow the list down to one. There are lots of feelings about primaries … some positive and some negative:
- Some people feel that a primary is a waste of party money, thus limiting the party’s effectiveness in vying against the opposing party in November. It’s true that a primary battle cuts deeply into a party’s finances. By spending money that has been garnered for the election it means that the party is going to have to go back to the donors to replenish the account in order to be effective in the general election.
- Sometimes a primary exposes deep divisions within a party, thus “hanging dirty laundry out to dry” in public and revealing a weakness in the party.
- Others, however, feel that the primary can be an effective way of exposing candidates and revealing the strength of a party by showcasing numerous qualified candidates who embrace the party’s ideologies.
- It is also a way of weeding out potential candidates who have weaknesses which will not make them viable candidates in a general election. In every election year there are people who choose to run for a variety of reasons, but have no appeal to the public. The primary process gives them their fifteen minutes of fame, but saves the party the embarrassment of endorsing them.
At its best, a primary serves the party well and produces a viable candidate who is capable of carrying the party’s flag into a general election. The problem with a primary, however, is that it attracts limited numbers of voters. Consequently it doesn’t always work properly, and an emotional push by a hungry constituency can thrust a less qualified person into candidacy over a legitimately qualified person who might serve the process better.
This year’s primaries are laced with a number of interesting potential candidates:
- Members of the Tea Party whose energy and untested qualifications can result in a weak candidate.
- Anti-incumbent candidates, a phenomenon common in mid-term elections. This year the seriousness of issues facing the nation has produced a strong anti-incumbency factor, potentially jeopardizing the continuing good work of a number of incumbents in both parties who are vital to the governmental process.
- Single-issue candidates who have a passion about immigration, finances, big government, abortion, gender issues, etc. The problem with single-issue candidates is that they are not allowed the privilege of dealing exclusively with their passion when elected. Those elected have to be capable of dealing with a huge variety of issues, some of which are technical and require a broader capability.
The attending issue regarding primaries, however, is the capability of the voting public to tolerate extended periods of political ads on television, wrangling between and among potential candidates, and the negativity which emerges as the primary day looms. People become disenchanted with the process and pull back, sometimes withdrawing from the general election because of burn-out. The reasonable and sensible action on the part of weak potential candidates is to recognize the writing on the wall and pull out, then offering their support to a legitimate candidate and cementing the party. What remains will be either an uncontested intra-party candidate or a slate of candidates with legitimate claim to the nomination. That is when the principles which brought about the concept of primary will best be served.
Photo Credit: www.pasd.org
