One Man, Two Votes

One of the disturbing facts about the coming election year is that the primary season is going to be very scrunched together, with state after state holding primaries and caucuses in quick succession. In practical terms, this means that the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees will be known fairly quickly and the general election will begin for all intents and purposes quite early. Even if the season was not scrunched together, there would still be criticism as there always is about the early primaries exerting too much influence on the outcome of the nomination process. It is surely in the country's best interest to have a primary season that lasts long enough for the American people to get to know the candidates. Spreading out the primaries and caucuses more is something that is needed, but I have another idea which also might help make the nomination process interesting right up until the conventions. This idea was inspired by George Washington and the men who elected him, so you know it's going to be good!

The first few American presidential elections were ultimately determined as presidential elections are determined today: by the votes of a small number of people who served as electors. These electors had two votes which had to be cast for two different candidates. The Twelfth Amendment made it so that these two votes were distinct from one another, one being cast for a presidential candidate and the other for a vice-presidential candidate. In the elections of 1789, 1792, 1796, and 1800, there was no distinction between the two votes of the electors; the chosen vice president was simply the candidate who received the largest number of electoral votes after the president. In practice, this system caused some difficulties, particularly to Thomas Jefferson who ended serving as vice president to a president of a very different political persuasion and then nearly lost the presidency to the man who was supposed to be (and ultimately was) his own vice president. Does this mean two votes are one too many? With all sympathy to Thomas Jefferson, I think the answer to that question may well be no -- perhaps, instead, this is an American political tradition that should be revived to help fix America's primary problem. (Talk about a confusing use of the word "primary" -- I apologize, but I do not edit.)

Suppose, for instance, that primary voters were required to cast two votes of equal value for two different candidates instead of one. This would certainly make landslide primary victories difficult to obtain since for every vote cast for one candidate there would be another cast against that candidate. It would also encourage voters to give more than one candidate a chance; some, undoubtedly, would exercise their democratic right to throw their second vote away by casting it for an unlikely candidate, but surely some others, if not the majority of voters, would choose to vote for the two candidates they like the best. There are some downsides to this idea, as well, but I don't think they are particularly serious. For one thing, this idea would make it possible for a popular second-choice candidate to defeat several more popular first-choice candidates. Chris Dodd is not many people's first choice for president right now, but a lot of people like him; in a two-vote system, a Chris Dodd could win a primary just by being the second choice of a lot of Hillary and Obama voters. Is the victory of a candidate many people like but most people do not like a lot a triumph for democracy? Another unfortunate aspect to this might be the dimming of enthusiasm people feel for their particular candidate of choice; I don't think this impact would be huge, but I would expect to see more people divide their energy, time, and contributions between at least two candidates that they like through the primaries.