Primaries: What Are They Good For?

Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution joins us for the first time. She and Jonah ...

By

Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution joins us for the first time. She and Jonah stray from pure rank punditry to instead discuss intra-party politics of primaries, the Democratic Party, and Elaine’s innate skepticism of the Electoral College. Jonah pushes back by saying that “When you start to dig under the surface, most people who oppose the Electoral College are really just saying that they don’t like the Senate,” to which Elaine has a great, balanced response (probably the best answer we’ve heard on this program from someone that dislikes the Electoral College). Join the program to see more light than heat on this episode.

Show Notes:

–Elaine Kamarck, the Brookings Institution

–Elaine’s latest book, Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (63)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kara

    Great discussion. I think Jonah brings up a good point about how no one making the argument against the electoral college brings up the disparity in electoral votes between Vermont and Texas the way they do between Wyoming and California.

    What strikes me is that no one brings up the differences in economic power between Wyoming and California. California has huge economic and cultural influence due to its market power and the entertainment industry based there. Perhaps that should be taken into consideration when comparing the relative electoral power between the two. The California Air Resources Board has a huge impact on the performance specifications fo a wide variety of products. Curbing its electoral power provides a check on that for the rest of us.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    John Tompkins

    Absolutely loved this. Conversation across political boundaries or outside the team rivalries are what I’m here for. This kind of stuff is why I am glad to pay for a subscription.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Patrick

    Really great podcast. I thought Elaine was one of the most persuasive voices I’ve ever heard from the left. Lots of interesting ideas to chew on.
    Normally, when I listen to progressives at 538 or Ezra Klein, it’s hard to cut through the condescension to take any ideas seriously. Elaine did none of that. If progressives want to persuade folks, they should steal Ezra’s bullhorn and give it to Elaine.

    Collapse
  4. Brett C

    Excellent interview, Jonah. Have you considered having Ian Shapiro on? I feel like you'd find a lot of agreement with him on this, and he may be able to add interesting insight into 2 party system vs multiple parties.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Erlend N

    Though I remain unchanged regarding my lower case republican priors (I don’t ever want to see the electoral college axed) certainly have moved regarding the importance of keeping private civil institutions insular, and that the rules of the process belong in house. I used to criticize the Superdelegates in the Democratic Party but now I wish the GOP was similarly constituted because the party leadership and its officers should have the final say on who carries the flag.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    The Artful Curmudgeon

    I enjoyed a lot of the podcast, but diverged from Elaine when she fell into the "one man, one vote" line. The oft-repeated line that the EC disenfranchises voters is both wrong on its face and a rather transparent attempt to provide a justification for the coasts to run America.

    Each person's vote counts as much as everybody else's *in their state*. What people opposed to the EC are frustrated about is that being clustered in one state denies them the influence they would have if they weren't so concentrated in several states.

    Imagine if instead of being clustered along the coasts and in cities, liberals were about evenly distributed along with conservatives in the 50 states. Would they still be talking about this?

    Jonah's point that the states are sovereign is correct. Elaine's argument that we're one country now (i.e. one big mega-state instead of a federation of states) and that the EC was a compromise to get states to join the union is exactly the point. What's in it for Wyoming or Kansas to have their politics dictated to them by California or New York just because more people with similar politics decide to live there?

    If you want to know what happens when a minority voting bloc has no ability to check the tyranny of the majority, just look at what happens in machine cities and states (and yes, I mean both D and R). The check on majoritarian power is healthy for both sides.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Angie

    This was a very fun pod, she is just awesome and you could tell you were enjoying yourself Jonah...I really liked her and the things I learned from her and her opinions...look forward to her being on again

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Richard Gale

    Jonah....what the hell happened? In the discussion did you really mean to agree with Elaine about ways to either eliminate or emasculate the electoral college? Her complaint is that smaller states have a greater weighting than larger states. THAT is the point! If you figure out ways to diminish that impact, large metropolitan states become a mob to overpower smaller rural states. What about that is good?

    As far as the Interstate Compact goes, does it not occur to anybody that states that agree to this are agreeing to disenfranchise their voters? How long will that remain popular after the first time a state awards it votes to the candidate that lost the popular vote in that state? I admire your willingness to give your guests a chance to explain their positions without interruption, but I was hoping for some push back. The framers of the constitution took great care to find ways to avoid allowing the strong to overpower the weak. Do we no longer believe in that principle?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Gary Robbins

    I don't recall reading this in the comments, but as to the U.S. Senate, this is the one remaining area where the Constitution states cannot be amended. Article V states in its last clause, "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This means that the Constitution cannot be amended relative to the Senate. The only way to address this issue would be to create a brand new Constitution. Good luck with that!

    Collapse
  10. Janet L. Roberts

    Great podcast. So informative I've listened to it twice.

    Collapse
Load More