Electing a president

by Myron M. Cherry

Find out how Americans elect a president and why it is such a tortured and expensive process of primaries.

By the time you read this, you will likely know who the nominees for the office of the President of the United States are for the Democrat and Republican parties. A third party may even be in the field, an event that occurs occasionally. The last time that happened was when Ross Perot and Pat Choate launched a pretty expensive, and failed, attempt during the 1991 contest between Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr.

Let us take a moment to reflect on what might be the overarching phenomenon on how America selects those who might be national leaders. For that, we have to back up a little.

As we all know, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 (although some historians mark the exact date of signing as July 5). We hear about the Declaration all the time and its recognition of equality and rights. It was thought at the time that a freeman would vote for the common good and recognize every other person’s equal rights. No law, it was thought, was necessary to enforce this concept as the drafters of the Declaration believed that once freed from England, everyone would be a good citizen.

This experiment failed and the Confederation of States which shortly followed the Declaration of Independence was a disaster. Some States would not send their citizens to fight the Revolutionary War effort then ongoing while other states refused to finance the war. History records that without the determination of General Washington and the timely intervention of the French, the United States might not have become the land of the free and the home of the brave. During the 11 years between the Declaration of Independence and the writing and subsequent adoption of the Constitution, many Americans wanted to rejoin England, merge with France or even have Prince Leopold purchase the 13 States.

What happened during this interlude between the Declaration and the Constitution was that freemen did not opt for the public good and what the public good was. A handful of thoughtful people led by James Madison of Virginia concluded that freemen pursue self-interest and that was the guiding principle of a free society, and self-interest, not the prospect that freemen would always do "the right thing."

The Constitution was written that a national government could not rush to judgment on any issue, whether it benefited the majority or a minority. A government could operate only on the basis of a coalition of the willing and not a consensus of the majority. Indeed, during the debates of the Constitution, many thought that the whole idea of representative government was flawed because citizens rarely have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. Thus, big issues never get done unless we have a coalition that finds support throughout the country. Only then can we say that we have compromised self-interest for the common good. And usually no one wins completely; otherwise you would never get a coalition.

That is how we elect a president and why we go through this tortured and expensive process of primaries where all candidates in both parties spend well north of one quarter billion dollars.

In the early stages of presidential primaries, candidates talk about the generalities of issues that reflect each particular party’s intellectual fundamentals and also reflect a growing need in society. At the beginning of the current campaign, getting out of Iraq overwhelmed almost every other issue and it reflected the views of activists in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. No one asked why the country did not debate the issue of getting into Iraq because no one saw the need to discuss it. There was no election ongoing to foster the debate. Similarly, universal health care has been talked about since the 1920’s, was tried by Harry Truman and famously by Hillary Clinton, but it did not go anywhere. Now it dominates the airwaves because there is a growing public coalition.

United States primaries are not just to weed out candidates who are not articulate or photogenic, but who, in some detail, begin to talk about what is bothering America; and we don’t get there without the national primaries because for better or worse, that is the only vehicle to engage in a national debate.

Throughout the years, some nongovernmental entities have influenced the national debate, but it took a lot of time and money. Think about Earth Day, the March of Dimes and the Civil Rights movement. These laudatory issues took time because they were not the focus of intense national primaries at a time when there was a willing coalition of American citizens. So, the primary becomes the national town hall meeting which is repeated over again by people in interviews, commentators on talk shows and polls taken at exit interviews.

Some criticize the primary procedure. They say that we should have regional primaries in each of the four great sections of this country in order to select the president and not let Iowa and New Hampshire play such a great role. For example, the state of Michigan tried to move up its primary, not because it wanted an earlier say in who would be president, but because it wanted to focus the national debate on Michigan issues. This, of course, could not be done efficiently if its primary came after it was all over. We only listen once every four years!

Maybe regional primaries are a good answer and many thoughtful people think so, but if you believe that the national primaries are a way to learn about the issues that are supported by a coalition of our citizens, then you might agree that the primary’s most important function is to select issues so that the president can carry them to fruition.

Let’s see if I’m right. Pick your issue and tell us next year where it went!

If you have a particular subject that you would like me to cover in this column, send me an e-mail at mcherry@cherry-law.com. I would be interested in your comments. Until then, be well and good business.