Election Rules and Factionalism

Campaign and electoral reforms have created "unintended consequences" for parties and complicated the nominating and electoral process for voters, but they have made the process more democratic while not diminishing partisanship. If anything, I would argue, partisanship or factionalism has increased as a result of the modernized nominating process (despite the lackluster turnout numbers during primary campaigns). Since it is up to the "people" to nominate candidates, not the men in the smoke filled rooms of the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago (which ironically now has a smoke-free policy), individual voters must become familiar with each serious candidate and their leadership style in order to make an informed decision. It may have been cleaner for party bosses to settle on who they believed was the most electable or able candidate, but it was hardly democratic.

Since abdicating control of the nominating process parties have been forced to contend with several problems. Specifically, they have little (as is the case for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level) or no (for the Republican Party) control over who seeks their nomination for office at any level. For example during the 2008 Republican Primary, non-mainstream candidates such as Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul declared themselves to be Republicans, but their views were either too far to the right so they were out-of-step with the majority of the country or too libertarian, as in Paul's case, so he was not in line with the rest of his party. On the Democratic side, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich called themselves "Democrats" while seeking the Presidential nomination despite their intense "Lakefront Holiday Spice" (see previous post for the reference) beliefs.

Throughout recent history (post-1968) voters within specific parties have occasionally stiffed the party with people that were not their first choice of candidates. Specifically in 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" who did not adhere to the party's typically liberal orthodoxy. This happened again in 2008. Barack Obama was hardly the establishment's choice for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination (remember according to the media Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee). On the Republican side John McCain was a self-proclaimed (or maybe it was a media creation) "maverick" who was notorious for rankling members of his own party. I would argue he won the nomination based largely on support from "moderate," "somewhat conservative," or "independent" voters from New Hampshire and "moderate" or "somewhat conservative" voters from Florida. By winning in both states he gained momentum allowing the media to fixate on that momentum. This according to Heatherington and Keefe is extremely important because of their fascination with covering the "horse race" aspect of the nomination fight. It also allowed him to sew up major donors.

This leads us to the campaign finance portion of the discussion. The current laws that have eliminated soft money donations and limited individual and group contributions to campaigns are successful at evening up or leveling the playing field on the surface. However by doing this, lawmakers have enabled the viral partisanship they devise (unless they are engaging in it) to brew slightly below the surface. By placing limits on campaign contributions, deep-pocketed bundlers who would have normally donated unlimited amounts of money to the candidate or the party, now direct their contributions to independent interest groups with a very narrow policy scope. As a result, these interest groups fill a vacuum that has been vacated by the candidates and their respective parties. According to Heatherington and Keefe, "527" groups are able to play a significant role in election advertising. They cite the most significant "527" group in recent election history--the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who ran a series of negative ads criticizing 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's war record.

By attempting to purify the electoral process, parties relinquish control over their nominees and some of the independent advertising. The system as it is currently structured is imperfect (as was demonstrated during the previous cycle's primary [e.g. superdelegates] and general election [e.g. Obama's abandonment of public financing] campaigns) and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect perfection. As long as countries have had elections and election laws, parties and interest groups have searched for and usually found ways around those laws. Factionalism has been part of our politics since 1788 and will remain as long as we are a nation. Political influence on elections will persist. It does not matter if it is "official" in the case of parties or "unofficial" in the case of 527s. We should not want it eradicated. Instead we should thrive on it and beg for its continued persistence. Strong, vociferous disagreement is the bedrock of a strong democracy. If factions are eliminated, what is the point of having elections?