Republicans Should First Ask How, Not Who

There is a better way to do primaries.

By
72

The Republicans should choose a 2024 nominee who is a nationalist culture warrior who can re-engage the working-class voters who came out for Donald Trump. No, wait. Republicans should nominate a traditional conservative who can win back suburban voters. Hold on. Republicans should nominate a nationalist who also appeals to conservatives. Or is it a conservative who appeals to nationalists? Anyway, it should definitely be a woman. And not white. A dog person is a plus, but she should have at least one cat, named either Steve or Linda. We can reassess when the polling comes back.

I kid, but this kind of thinking is already driving the accelerating 2024 pre-primary. Parties have always dreamed impossible dreams of the perfect candidate, especially parties crippled by deep divisions, as the Republicans are today. Indeed, this kind of magical thinking led Democrats into a pointlessly prolonged 2020 nominating process that deepened divisions, highlighted general election liabilities and wasted more than a billion dollars. 

In an era of weak parties, low entry barriers for candidates, and savage factionalism, the priority for partisan leaders should be less about picking the right person and more about picking the right process. For Republicans, that means embracing ranked-choice voting for primary elections.

Maine has already adopted the practice for both primary and general elections. Since 2018, voters there have been able to rank the candidates in order of their preference. When no one wins a majority in races with three or more candidates, it goes like this: If your top choice finishes last in the first round, he or she is eliminated and your vote rolls over to your second choice and so on until one candidate breaches the 50-percent line. Last year, Alaskans approved ranked-choice, multiparty primary elections. Candidates from all parties will run in one primary with the top two finishers after ranking, regardless of party, advancing to the general election.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
72
By
Comments (72)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    You know I used to be against ranked choice voting, but in recent years I changed completely. Now I’m with Chris.

    Collapse
  2. Safety Cone

    Never really understood primaries purpose, they are public funded, government endorsed activities run for the privilege of and really to ensure the preeminence of the two parties in their respective stongholds. Primaries subsidizes the cost/risk of candidate selection, don't serve the voters.

    Rank choice perhaps could be better as a one shot, no primary, general election strategy.

    And, we should separate general elections of congress, senate and executive by a couple months, so each one's outcomes informs the other.

    Collapse
  3. Safety Cone

    "as strong as wet cardboard in a windstorm"

    Just another dry cardboard apologist cartwheeling along with the headwinds.

    Collapse
  4. Alex DeLarge

    Ranked choice is a worthwhile experiment. But like most reforms it will probably be governed by the law of unintended consequences.

    One dynamic I can think of is that ranked choice may lessen the worry about "wasting" one's vote on a fringe candidate. So people may rank their actual favorite candidates as their top choices, instead of voting for who they are told by the party is the inevitable and electable candidate. This is the opposite of what the parties want.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cornelius O’Brien

    I will read this piece but before I do I want to hit the headline. Lindsey Graham is on Hannity saying that every Republican needs to answer the question of whether they will vote for Trump if he runs in 2024. That’s who no matter the how. As an aside he looks like he’s 85 years old.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Phil H

      I can give you that answer right now:

      NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Hmmmm, but I like watching the two different system in the primaries between republicans and democrats.

    *grabs popcorn*

    Not like either party is producing anything good these days.

    Maybe my generation will learn from the boomer's bad choices. Maybe not.

    Collapse
  7. Kurt Von Fuchs

    For paid more attention to the parties as organizations and less to the individual idiots in those organizations we might be better off

    Collapse
  8. Kurt Von Fuchs

    For paid more attention to the parties as organizations and less to the individual idiots in those organizations we might be better off

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    The drawback of ranked choice voting is that it can produce milquetoast candidates who might be everyone’s second or third choice, but aren’t anybody’s first choice. This process has been used by Canadian political parties for a couple of decades, and has led to some very uninspiring party leaders who go on to lose elections.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Belt

    Two things: As I keep telling everyone, something desperately needs to be done; nothing will be done. I dunno if ranked choice voting is a good idea. I favor a rotating pool of primary states to give a diverse set of states a chance to be first in line. But I doubt that any of the entrenched interests can be overcome to make any significant change. Regarding the 'who' part, here's a serious question: Can the GOP force the primaries to be limited to current or former state governors? Just flatly prevent anyone else who hasn't run a state from being considered? If that's possible, that would be my preferred solution.

    Collapse
Load More