The way we elect our presidents in the U.S. is a convoluted system filled with primaries, caucuses, delegates, party conventions, campaigns and rhetoric filled with fear and anger. The debates are not filled with real issues, only trivial arguing. Our elections have become more of a reality TV show than a democratic process. These are just some of the reasons why I believe the way we elect our presidents is improper and unacceptable. As a country we need to rethink the way we are voting for our leaders and decide if it is the most effective way of getting the most qualified people into office.
In presidential primaries, each state has a different way of electing its candidate and a different number of delegates each candidate can win. It makes sense that states have a different number of delegates because populations differ widely, from 38 million in California to only 500,000 in Wyoming. What doesn’t make sense though is that some states have primaries while others have caucuses, and nearly all of them have unique dates and rules. For instance, all Democratic primaries award delegates based on the proportion of votes each candidate received, but some Republican primaries, like in South Carolina, are winner-take-all.
Additionally, early voting states have a disproportionate effect on the election by providing some candidates with momentum. This wouldn’t be such a problem if early states were representative of the country, but they are not. Iowa, which votes first, has a population of about 3.1 million that is 92 percent white and composed of a large number of Evangelical Christians. It makes zero sense to me that this predominantly white, Evangelical state should be such an important part of the presidential election.
Moreover, campaigns have reached a whole new level of ridiculousness. Being a good campaigner and fundraiser has nothing to do with being a good president, but this is how the process works. Oftentimes, the candidates with the best resumes do get elected, but there are numerous cases when inexperienced and unqualified people win. We pick people based on qualities that don’t actually reflect if someone can be a good president. For example, being able to attract large sums of money from wealthy donors is extremely helpful in getting your name out as a candidate, but this has nothing to do with being a qualified president.
Another reason campaigns are ridiculous is how early they start. The general election is not until Nov. 8, 2016, and the Iowa caucus was held Feb. 1, 2016. Yet all of the people still in the race declared their candidacy well over a year in advance of the general election. Ted Cruz, the earliest to declare, announced his campaign March 23, 2015, almost two years before the general election.
Furthermore, the amount of money spent for campaigns is nauseating. Instead of being invested into something worthwhile, money gets spent by candidates on advertisements bashing their opponents or portraying themselves as a savior. For example, former Republican candidate Jeb Bush spent $2,800 per vote in Iowa, and received less than 3 percent of the total vote. Bush was airing commercials in Wisconsin in February, when our election isn’t until April 5, and he dropped out Feb. 20. The amount of money Jeb Bush wasted on his campaign is preposterous. But at least he’s not a million dollars in debt like Gov. Scott Walker’s mess of a campaign still is.
It is clear to me that the system we have in place is outrageous. Therefore, working within the current framework of our democracy, I think an easy solution to simplify the presidential election would be to have every state conduct a primary on the same day and have each candidate get a number of delegates proportional to how many votes they receive. These delegates should then be required to vote for the candidate they are assigned to, eliminating bewildering caucuses and standardizing the election. It would also prevent certain unrepresentative states from disproportionately affecting the outcome. Candidates should also not be allowed to declare their candidacy more than a year before the general election, or more than seven months before the primary.
The current way we elect our presidents in the U.S. is a convoluted system filled with primaries, caucuses, delegates, party conventions, campaigns that start over a year in advance and negative rhetoric. We should ask ourselves: Are we really voting in the best person for the job? Does the process we have in place weed out the weakest links? Or does it just get people elected who are the best campaigners?
Thomas is a junior majoring in history and psychology. Do you agree with him that the system we use to elect our presidents is flawed and needs revamping? Please send all comments and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
