With a looming presidential race in the near future that could become more controversial than the last, it is important to take a stark examination of our nomination process. A trend within political parties that has grown in authority and influence is the issue of frontloading.
To “frontload” is to allocate unevenly, with the greater proportion at the beginning of a process. This is precisely what has occurred since 1980 with regard to when party nominations are secured and delegates are awarded in primaries and caucuses. Individuals fighting for nominations from 1968-1983 had on average taken about 10 weeks to secure a nomination, while the elections that took place from 1984-2004 averaged secure nominations from both parties in about 5 weeks. This intended reduction results in a constituency that is less informed on potential nominee candidates due to the nominee being chosen in half the time that was historically taken in our political system.
Frontloading also reduces the depth of policy dialogue that candidates are able to exhibit to the constituency while seeking nomination from their party. This policy dialogue is often what reaffirms candidates credentials and leadership ability to the public eye for less politically engaged constituents.
Frontloading has turned one of our most fundamentally democratic procedures into a game of popularity. Popularity sounds like a good thing when discussing presidential nominees, but the type of popularity I am referring to is not a positive one. Frontloading creates an avenue that encourages an advantage to the wealthiest and longest active and prestigious members of political parties to win the nomination. During the pre-nomination season party leaders engage with the possible candidates. If party leaders and activists concentrate their resources—endorsements and campaign contributions, respectively — they may create a front runner.
If we were to expand the length of the nomination process instead of shortening it, nominee’s would not be handcuffed by the results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, which are currently the earliest dates where a prominent number of delegates are secured. This means that states that are commonly referred to as “swing states,” where voting output is generally higher, could be placed at the beginning of the election season, while states that are generally dominated by one party could be put off by their delegations until the end of the season resulting in their constituents feeling a greater sense of importance and possibly an increased voter turnout rate. Citizens are more likely to remain interested when the race is competitive, so if the nominee election process takes longer for a nominee to secure the delegates, this could generate an increased voter turnout rate.
Finances are extremely influential in nomination processes, because front runners are able to withstand early losses by retaliating with increased resource spending. When candidates are predetermined to have less prevalence than the frontrunners, they seek to gain momentum throughout the nomination season. Because of this fate, momentum candidates simply cannot recover from defeats early on in the loaded delegation appointment process. At the end of 1999, Bush was reported to have more than $31 million in cash-on-hand; his nearest rival, McCain, had approximately $1.5 million. It followed that the Bush campaign prominently used the slogan, “Vote for George W. Bush in 2000 because he can win”. Is this really the rhetoric we want to employ to determine the leader of the free world? Should personal capital and business relationships take precedence over the policy rhetoric of those seeking nomination? I believe not. I believe the practice of frontloading only benefits the party members directly holding prestigious government positions. I believe that any man or woman that desires to seek nomination to the general election ought to receive a more just and longer nomination process that does not award the majority of delegates to the frontrunner early on.
The need for campaign finance reform and presidential election reform is growing substantially every year as we continue to become more and more politically divided and as presidential approval ratings continue to plummet. This divergent trend away from democratic values is an end that will be enormously difficult to attain. Reform would require the presidential nominee’s and their party leadership to agree on a uniform change. Because the presidential nominee and parties benefit from the front loading system, it seems unlikely that they would seek to reform it for the concerns of the general population. This means it is up to us as the constituents and citizens who don’t hold office to voice our concerns over this deficient process.
This system to set up to benefit the government and political parties directly, citizens ought not to expect change until we can oust party leadership bias. In order to expect change we must first vocalize the discourse against the held interests of the parties and instead individually weigh the interests of every American voter.
Democrats and Republicans have proven their inadequacies and lack of cohesive policy common ground as of late, it is about time we took away their influence over the nomination process and relocate that influence in the hands of the American people where it ought to be.
Instead of increasing voter turnout and instead of allowing for more than party leadership influence to determine which nominations are secured, I believe it is in the best interest of every American voter to start to develop a campaign against this representational shortcoming.
Nick Shook is a senior studying political science pre-law at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Do you agree? Let Nick know by emailing him at ns258814@ohio.edu.
