Who Chooses Our Presidents?
The decentralized nature of U.S. elections did not account for strong, centralized parallel institutions that could easily coopt the process.
America's presidential election process is a labyrinth by design, reflecting a decentralized voting system supposedly rooted in America’s founding principles. This complexity is further compounded by the significant influence wielded by the two major political parties—the Democratic and Republican parties—over electoral mechanisms. The 2024 election cycle, with its primaries and caucuses, sheds light on the intricate dance between state autonomy, party rules, and voter will.
The issue of Nevada having two elections, Biden not being on the New Hampshire ballot, and talks of replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee, all hint at a much larger issue: who actually controls our electoral system?
Defining Some Terms: Primaries and Caucuses
Primaries and caucuses serve as the battlegrounds where party nominees are determined. While primaries are straightforward elections utilizing ballots, caucuses are gatherings where party members debate and decide on their preferred candidates, a system that can seem opaque and convoluted to outsiders.
A primary is essentially an election where party members or registered voters select their preferred candidate through secret ballots, much like a general election. Primaries can be open, allowing any registered voter to participate regardless of party affiliation, or closed, restricting participation to registered party members only. This method offers a straightforward, private way for voters to express their preferences among the candidates running under their party's banner.
In contrast, a caucus is a local gathering of party members who openly discuss and vote for their preferred candidate. The caucus system involves more direct, participatory forms of democracy, where voters may need to physically move to different parts of a room to show their support for a candidate.
The process can include public debate and persuasion, making it more time-consuming and potentially less private than casting a ballot in a primary. Caucuses conclude with the election of delegates, who then represent the caucus-goers' choices in subsequent rounds of voting, potentially up to the national party convention.
The Nevada Conundrum
Many people may wonder why there were two elections held in Nevada. This situation illuminates the distinction between the State as an authority and the Party as an authority. The party that currently controls the Nevada State Legislature is the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party decided that in Nevada, they were going to host an overall primary, instead of a caucus. Thus they changed the date and the manner in which the election was hosted. The Republican National Convention and the Republican Party of Nevada did not agree with these rule changes. This created a divergence between the election laws in Nevada, and the Republican party.
This is why the RNC and the Republican Party of Nevada stated that they were going to be hosting the election outside of the States legal system. The RNC did not recognize the Nevada state primary. You had one election approved by the RNC and the Republican Party of Nevada (the caucus), in which Trump was on the ballot, and another election not approved by the RNC but run by the State in which Nikki Haley was on the ballot (the primary).
This is why Nikki Haley was on one ballot for the state's primary, and Trump was not. Interestingly enough, Nikki Haley still lost to "none of these Candidates" in that State primary, as opposed to the Nevada RNC caucus, which had Trump but not Haley.
The Nevada delegates were awarded to Trump.
What makes this process unique is the fact that parties themselves are not in the Constitution. They are parallel government organizations; they are parallel systems. The RNC and the DNC, working with states—hopefully in conjunction with one another—organize our electoral processes.
But when states start to not do what either major party wants, the processes of the big parties can actually trump what those states are able to do. The conclusion being that the party, either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, actually control our electoral system as it stands today. If the “wrong” candidate wins a state, they can disregard that states delegates much like what the Democrats just did in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire’s Broken Precedent
Traditionally, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary have kicked off the primary season, giving these states considerable influence over the momentum of presidential campaigns. However, the decision to move the first Democratic primary to South Carolina represented a departure from tradition.
South Carolina, with its significant African American Democratic electorate, offered President Biden a more favorable demographic compared to the predominantly white electorates of Iowa and New Hampshire. This move was seen as a bid to leverage the strong support Biden received from African American voters in the 2020 primaries, which was pivotal in revitalizing his campaign and ultimately securing the nomination.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., emerged as a surprising and formidable challenger to President Biden's bid for re-election, specifically in New Hampshire. Kennedy's campaign tapped into a growing vein of discontent within certain segments of the Democratic base, appealing to progressive voters and those disillusioned with the status quo.
His candidacy posed a direct threat to Biden's re-election prospects, particularly in early-voting states where a strong showing for Kennedy could have dramatically altered the race's trajectory. Primary’s, after all, are all about building momentum. A win in New Hampshire could have given RFK Jr. the momentum to win other early states.
Faced with the potential threat posed by RFK Jr., especially in a state like New Hampshire where his campaign was gaining traction, the DNC's decision to prioritize South Carolina as the first primary state was a strategic countermeasure.
The DNC's maneuvering extended to the controversial decision to cancel the New Hampshire primary, a move that sparked significant debate and underscored the tensions between state party organizations and the national committee. This decision was seen as a direct response to the potential threat RFK Jr. posed in New Hampshire, a state known for its independent-minded electorate and history of bucking national trends.
However, New Hampshire law still stated that the state was to host its election before all other states. So a primary was still held but without Biden on the ballot. The DNC sanctioned New Hampshire for this and, as of right now, New Hampshire’s delegates have been wiped from the register. In other words, the New Hampshire primary voters did not have a voice in the Democratic Party’s election process. Their voting rights were stripped away.
Replacing Biden
Given the above, replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee isn’t actually all that complex. All the DNC needs to do is run Biden through the primary process until he wins. Once he wins, the DNC can simply replace him and choose whoever they would like. They could reshuffle the delegates at a whim, as according to DNC rules (unlike the RNC) delegates are not bound to any candidate.
The rules governing the replacement of a presidential nominee are outlined in the DNC's charter and bylaws, which provide a legal and procedural foundation for such an action. These rules are designed to ensure the party remains competitive in the general election, even in the face of unexpected developments such as health issues, personal decisions to withdraw, or other significant factors that could lead a nominee to step down.
The Process of Replacement
Should the need arise to replace Biden after he has secured the nomination, the DNC has a clear, though seldom-used, process in place:
Convening the Committee: The DNC would first convene a special meeting of its members. This assembly is authorized to make decisions on behalf of the party, including the selection of a new nominee.
Voting Procedures: The replacement process would likely involve a vote by the DNC members. The specifics of this vote, including whether it would be conducted by a simple majority or a different threshold, would be guided by the DNC's existing rules and any relevant precedents. These rules can be changed at anytime however.
Considerations for Selection: In selecting a replacement nominee, the DNC would consider several factors, including electability, the preferences expressed by voters during the primary process, and the need to maintain unity within the party. The committee might also consider the vice-presidential nominee as a potential replacement, given their existing visibility and vetting during the campaign. But they do not have to choose the Vice President.
Implications for the Vice-Presidential Nominee: The selection of a new presidential nominee could also impact the vice-presidential slot. Depending on the circumstances, the new nominee might choose their running mate, potentially leading to further changes on the ticket.
Conclusion
The intricacies of the American presidential election process, as revealed through the 2024 election cycle, underscore a complex interplay between state autonomy, party rules, and the will of the voters, with power mostly residing with the two party apparatus.
The situation in Nevada and the strategic shifts by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to prioritize South Carolina over traditional early-voting states like New Hampshire and Iowa illustrate the dynamic nature of electoral strategy and the significant influence parties wield over the election process. These moves, motivated by demographic considerations, potential outsider candidate threats, and the goal of capturing key segments of the electorate, demonstrate the Democratic and Republican parties' capacity to adapt and reconfigure the electoral landscape at a whim.
The controversy surrounding the Nevada caucus and the New Hampshire primary, along with the potential for replacing a nominee post-primary, further emphasize the complex relationship between state laws, party regulations, and the broader democratic principles guiding the United States.
The decentralized nature of U.S. elections did not account for strong, centralized parallel institutions that could easily coopt the process. Now it should make sense to why being the head of the RNC or DNC is such a big deal.