The most recent edition of the podcast, Left, Right and Center discusses three topics. I'd like to focus on the middle one of these three segments which starts about sixteen minutes from the start of the program. That segment concerns our elections, focusing especially on our system of primary elections.
One proposal apparently longs for the days when candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms. To make elections more democratic we turned to a complex (though still not entirely democratic) system of primaries. Observing that this new approach is failing spectacularly (witness the Trump takeover of the GOP) the discussion centers on a proposal to abandon primaries and go back to smoke-filled rooms.
But are these the only options? We might want to look more closely at the Trump phenomenon to see what actually went wrong. If we opened up the system to more political parties and allowed voting in a way that allowed voters to express their willingness to compromise on issues and candidates, then perhaps we could achieve a stronger democracy.
Interestingly, the podcast discussion did briefly address the unfairness of the staggered state-by-state primary system, but the possibility of nationwide primaries failed to be brought up as an alternative. No doubt this thought, if it came to mind at all, was dismissed because our elections are the responsibility of the states so how could this be coordinated nationally. But why are primaries even an issue for the nation? Should they not be an issue for each party?
The reason this arises as an important national issue is the two-party system. If only two parties participate meaningfully in the general election then the selection of those two candidates is a vital issue for the nation that is critical to national politics. But this raises the question of why we persist in allowing the anti-democratic habit of there being only two political parties. With the right choice for voting, it really is not necessary.
