Political parties’ presidential nominating process is greatest risk to our democracy

OPINION:

Democrats have been working on a theme for the last couple of years that former President Donald Trump and his supporters constitute a threat to democracy because, well, because they have the temerity to support Mr. Trump.

Those on the Republican side think that the Biden administration and the organized crime family that is the FBI and the Department of Justice are the real threat to American democracy. They probably have a much better argument.

It is possible, however, that the most significant threat to representative government is something as quotidian as the architecture and rules under which our campaigns are run and our rulers are elected.

The two most remarkable data fragments in this campaign — both related to polling results — have not received much attention.

First, surveys have pretty consistently indicated that 60% to 70% of voters would rather have a different choice with respect to the likely nominees of the two major parties.

For example, Harvard-Harris has been asking for the last few months how voters feel about a rematch between President Biden and Mr. Trump. The survey routinely reports that about 70% of those surveyed would prefer another choice.

Whatever else you think about these results, they suggest a breakdown in something as fundamental to the system as providing meaningful choice, which seems like a minimum in a functioning system of representative government.

Yet, the conversation swirls onward, with few in the commentariat ever stopping to ask: How did we wind up here? And is there anything we can do next time to avoid this problem?

The general disillusion with the likely nominees is, of course, an important reason why we are likely to see multiple third-party candidates in the 2024 presidential contest. The Green Party already has a nominee and is on the ballot in close to three dozen states. Former Sen. Joe Lieberman seems serious (although he always does) about the No Labels process.

It is also why we have marginal figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy — neither of whom has the ability to actually be president — gaining more than marginal support.

The simple reality is that a system in which more than two-thirds of the voters feel something ranging from grudging acceptance to outright hostility to the next president may be a lot of things, but it is not likely to be politically stable.

How did we wind up at this moment?

Part of the answer is that the primary systems of both of the major parties are broken.

For example, despite Mr. Trump’s significant and durable lead in surveys, fewer than half of Republican primary voters have routinely indicated that they intend to vote for him to be the Republican nominee. That is remarkable, especially since Mr. Trump is essentially running as an incumbent.

To be clear, Mr. Trump appears to be on the path to winning the nomination in 2024. That path, however, may well look like his victory in 2016, when he won while receiving less than 45% of the total votes cast in that nominating contest. That 45% was good enough to net 60% of the delegates.

Compare that to former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who received almost 14% of the vote and wound up with about 6% of the delegates.

On the other side, it is possible that Mr. Kennedy will win 10% to 15% of the Democratic primary vote and net almost no delegates.

That kind of mismatch between votes and outcome is not a recipe for a stable and durable presidency, and it is the sort of outcome that leads directly to 70% of voters not really wanting either of the major party candidates.

So, the next time someone starts talking about threats to democracy, reflect on the fact that the greatest risk to American democracy is probably not any particular group of people on either side.

The greatest risk may be the parties’ nominating processes that produce candidates who aren’t necessarily supported by a majority of voters, not even those of their own party.

• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.