Season 1, Episode 5 | Where's the Party? Presidential Selection Gone Wrong

Where’s the Party? Presidential Selection Gone Wrong

Are presidential elections as democratic as we believe? How did we go from the Framers' carefully crafted vision to the whirlwind of primaries and national conventions that define our elections today? Over the years, the process of selecting a president has transformed—political parties have risen, conventions have become essential, and now primaries dominate the scene. With growing concerns over corruption, demagogues, and the weakening role of superdelegates, it’s time to ask: Is this truly the best way to choose our nation's leader?

In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, James Ceaser, to dive deep into the evolution of the U.S. presidential selection process. Together, they explore the Framers' original intentions, fears of foreign influence, and the rise of political parties. They also discuss Martin Van Buren’s pivotal role in democratizing the process, the fall of the "King Caucus," and the impact of the Progressive era’s primary system. With a closer look at the modern challenges of populism and party dynamics, this conversation uncovers whether today’s system still serves the democratic ideals it was meant to uphold.

Ready to rethink how we elect our leaders? Tune in to this episode and join the conversation!

In This Episode

• (00:00:03) Introduction to the episode
• (00:01:18) Original intent of the framers
• (00:03:05) Impact of political parties
• (00:03:25) King Caucus explained
• (00:06:00) Breakdown of King Caucus
• (00:07:08) Rise of national party conventions
• (00:09:51) Non-partisan self-selection period
• (00:10:22) Advent of the two-party system
• (00:12:16) Van Buren's influence
• (00:14:27) Conclusion on political parties
• (00:14:53) Martin Van Buren's influence
• (00:15:48) Evolution of presidential election
• (00:16:11) Van Buren's political vision
• (00:17:23) Preventing American aristocracy
• (00:18:49) The national party convention system
• (00:21:40) Corruption in the party system
• (00:22:37) Progressives and political reform
• (00:25:53) Mixed system of primaries and conventions
• (00:27:39) Decline of the old system
• (00:28:13) Dangers of modern primaries
• (00:29:03) The convention formation
• (00:30:17) Concerns of the founders
• (00:30:51) Challenges to reform
• (00:31:15) Superdelegates and party dynamics
• (00:33:11) Decline of superdelegates
• (00:35:16) Trump's unconventional nomination
• (00:36:24) The future of primaries
• (00:36:55) Kamala Harris as a nominee
• (00:39:17) Conclusion on the primary system

About James Ceaser

James W. Ceaser is the Harry F. Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, where he also leads the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy. An accomplished author, he has written several influential works on American politics and political theory, including Presidential Selection, Reconstructing America, and Nature and History in American Political Development.

In addition to his academic contributions, Ceaser frequently writes for popular outlets, such as The Weekly Standard and National Review. He has also served as a presidential appointee to the National Archives Commission.

Throughout his career, Ceaser has held visiting professorships at the University of Florence, the University of Basel, Oxford University, the University of Bordeaux, the University of Rennes, Harvard, and Princeton. In 2015, he was honored with the Bradley Prize.

Beyond his role on the Board of Directors, he serves as a member of the Academic Advisory Council for the Jack Miller Center.

Transcript

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:00:27]:

Welcome to This Constitution. My name is Savannah Eccles Johnston, and we are joined today by a very special guest, Professor James Ceaser, who's a Byrd professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University and is the author of many books and articles on American political thought and the American founding, and also, I have to say, one of the single best political scientists of his generation. We are very lucky to have him today. Welcome, James. Thank you for coming.

James Ceaser [00:01:08]:

Thank you.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:01:09]:

So today we are going to discuss the presidential selection process, which you wrote a book on, the book on all the way back in 1979. But first I would like to give an overview of the development of this process for our listeners who might not have any idea what it was originally intended to be like. So can you first tell me what was the original intent for the presidential selection process by the framers? What were they trying to avoid?

James Ceaser [00:01:38]:

Yes. Well, of course, people overlook the fact that it's like one of the four institutions outlined in the Constitution. They skip over it probably because of its subsequent fate of the constitutional character of the presidential selection process. But it is one of the four sketched national institutions. So I think that's an important point. Now, what they were trying to get rid of or avoid is interesting today because one of the things they talk about is fear of intervention by foreign powers in the presidential selection process and the effect that the foreign governments could have on choosing the president of the United States. And of course, it's been a big thing since 2016 when everyone was accusing the Russians of making a deal, Putin, a deal with Trump and so on and so forth. I think it's even going on this year. These accusations are being made. I think Iran is involved and a few other foreign powers. So that was one thing that they saw in advance. Some of the other things that they were concerned about are the things that you would expect, that this system, the system of choosing a president in general could lead to disorder, demagoguery and that they were always concerned about. So that was another point, that it would be a system that was faulty. Well, those were, I think, the two major concerns that they had in setting up this system.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:03:05]:

Well, those feel very relevant to 2024. But first, political parties really throw chaos. In the original system, they didn't see political parties coming. And so almost immediately that original system breaks down and we move to King caucus. Can you briefly explain what the King caucus is? Why did it break down, first of all, on this movement?

James Ceaser [00:03:25]:

That is true. When you look at the early system you mentioned, the animus against parties was widely felt. There was no desire in the United States at all for political parties one way or another, and Washington spoke ill of them. No one expected parties to emerge. So all this, what we've had, has taken place subsequent to the founding of America. Now, that, I think, is an important point to start with. But of course, we did eventually develop parties, probably in the latter part of Washington's first term. And in the second term, there was a real division, you could say, between Washington's and the Federalist Party on one hand, and then the Republican Democrats under Jefferson on the other hand, and under Adams. So the country really saw itself as having two parties. If you want to say that the Jefferson party goes all the way back to that period, you could say it's the oldest party in the world that we've had going back to that period. So that was an important point. Now, the question that they had was, how are they going to pick, once you have a party, by definition, almost have a nominee, who they were going to pick? It was pretty obvious that Jefferson was the head of the Jefferson Party. After all, it bears his name. But that came afterward. But that was an important element in the beginning of this. But they had to come up with a nominee. And this was true of both parties. Well, where do you get people together to make this choice at that point? I mean, a national convention was out of the question coming up with something like that. So the idea they came up with, well, we've got a few people here in Washington that fill the job, namely all the people that were elected to federal office from both of the two political parties. So the people who were elected to the House or the Senate in the Federalist Party, House and the Senate and the Republican-Democratic Party, were in Washington. Someone came up with the idea that's a good group to serve as someone who could nominate the candidate for president from our party. What group would be better? In fact, we might think of that in our time. I'm not so sure with the current Congress, who would want to do that, but that was the idea. So they quickly put them together and it was A caucus of those acting not in their official capacity as senators or representatives, but as people around of high distinction who could make the choice for the party. So the answer is convenience.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:06:00]:

Convenience. But it breaks down. It doesn't last particularly long. Why does what they will later call king caucus kind of derisively? Why will it break down?

James Ceaser [00:06:09]:

Well, it broke down because the Federalist Party suffered a huge decline in popularity by the end of Jefferson's administration. The real reason it broke down was because the Federalist Parties pretty much ceased to exist outside of New England, had a bad reputation nationally, and it became clear that there would only be one party. So that's why it broke down. Not because the system failed and not because the caucus wasn't king, but that's the main reason. So initially we had a system where we really had in fact one party in existence and there was no need for that. For the Federalists to meet. Madison became president and was well-liked enough. And so things continued.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:06:51]:

So this doesn't last. You mentioned that national party conventions were out of the question, but then they became the norm for a huge phase in American politics. You have national party conventions where the selection process is really controlled by political parties. Can you explain how that worked? It sounds kind of nice.

James Ceaser [00:07:08]:

Well, with the decline of the Federalist Party then people began asking the question when Monroe became president, we didn't really have an opponent who we're running against. So in effect, we have what looks like one party again or no parties. Either way you look at it, one party and no party are the same thing. So the Federalist Party was, you could say, forgotten. And that gave rise then to this idea of the air of good feelings in Monroe's administration. And that didn't mean getting up early in the morning and doing your exercises. The air of good feelings was something quite different. It was a regime that went back to what Washington wanted, namely the selection of the president on the basis of the merits of the individual, not the party. And there was a lot, from all quarters, a lot of support for this idea of having a selection system that was in line with the original intent, let's say in the Constitution, or many of individuals running for the presidency, not political parties.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:08:13]:

That's interesting that you say that. That's the original intent is selecting a person based on merit and not based on party. But that has been so rare in American political history, largely because somehow the founders missed this massive feature in American politics, which is political parties. They didn't see that one coming. So you have just this brief spurt in this era of good feelings. But then you do move back to parties controlling the presidential selection process with Jackson. So that breaks up fairly quickly.

James Ceaser [00:08:43]:

Fairly quickly. It goes on for a while. And when you look at that period there in the 1820s when this was being discussed, you see how widespread at this point, let's say in the 1820s, was the support for individual merit. After all, it makes sense when you read the Federalist Papers and sections on the presidency, why shouldn't the president be chosen on the basis of individual merit? It ran through the whole system. The vice president in the original system was not chosen on the basis that the president chose him. It was selected on the basis that this person would run on his own on the basis of his merit. Somewhat like in first grade or at least I remember when I was in school and we elected class officers, the president was number one and number two was the vice president, but not because the president chose him, but because he was number two. So this was the view. There was widespread support for this in that period. So there are lots of reasons why it was a competition between two parties. Because it wasn't evident for a good deal of time that we would have two parties.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:09:51]:

Right. And you call this brief interlude between 1824 and 1828 the period of nonpartisan self-selection, but it dies after 1828. Once again, we get away from the original intention of picking someone based on merit and instead go to parties. So national party conventions. How does this system work? Because this is quite interesting. Political parties are basically private institutions and they are selecting the candidates for the most important position in this country. How did that operate?

James Ceaser [00:10:22]:

Well, what brought that into being was the advent of two parties. Just as in the first situation, no one expected this difference between Washington and, say, the Jefferson party. They went in very different directions, very different ways of looking at things, and over a period of time that led to a split between the two parties. So in this period, let's say after Monroe's presidency and then the elections of 1828 and everything people looked at this was one reason that we would have two parties because there were two different points of view. In particular, as you get to 1832, questions of finance were very important. But before that, and this is, I think, the extraordinary thing about the advent of the second political parties, you had an individual Senator Martin Van Buren from the state of New York, who saw the need for two parties. We needed two parties. Not because we had two different points of view. We didn't emphasize that one way or another. That was not the Point, we needed two parties to improve the system of presidential selection. So Van Buren did it from the standpoint of improving the institutional framework of American politics. What was the problem, according to Ben Buren, he saw in the first or second election without political parties, he saw that lots of candidates for the presidency simply said, well, I want to become president. Why not? I'm as good as the guy next to me. We're all from the same party, there's no problem. I want to run, others want to run. So five or six people decided they were going to run for President of the United States and present their candidacy to the American public. So this raised a problem, according to Van Buren. One, it raised problems that probably under this system, no one would get a majority. The consequence of that would be that instead of the electoral system choosing the President, it would have to be chosen in the House. And no one really liked that idea. We could talk about that system, a very difficult system, and no one really was up for that. So that was one reason. But the other reason, I think the main reason is that these candidates began campaigning for the presidency way before the election for the presidency, they began competing for office, and they came from different sections of the country. So the idea was that the effect of this nominating process was to split the country into different groups where people would appeal to their own section against the other sections that the North would be against, the South would be against the West, and instead of bringing the country together, it would lead to separation and animus of the different parties. So the idea of unifying as an aspect of the presidential election that it was a time to bring the country together fell apart completely. And this, Van Buren said, was a very, very dangerous system. So he and a fellow from Richmond got together and said, is this really a good idea? Don't we have to change the system? And I think that was probably the key point moving in that direction. So Van Buren then moved to persuade Jackson slowly that this idea of having parties was a good idea. Not for the point of view necessarily of what you agree or disagree with, but for the idea of fixing the system. So when the difference broke out on financial matters and banks in 1832, Van Buren went to Jackson and he says, if you want to win the presidency for the next time, I'll bring you the Democratic Party, which is all my friends in Congress. I'll bring that support. So you really will win, have no problems, and you'll also do something good for the country. And so at that point, Jackson began to turn towards Van Buren's point of view. And to develop a two party system for the purpose of parties. Somewhat like Edmund Burke in England, that there was something to be said for this competition.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:14:17]:

Okay, this is such an interesting point. The idea that not only were political parties inevitable because people disagree, but they're actually healthy for the American political system. They performed an important function. And also that the original intention of the system failed. Not just because political parties came out of nowhere surprise, but also because the original system didn't work. It didn't function, maybe theoretically fine, but in practice, Van Buren is saying it doesn't work. So you actually have to move to a different system, a party-dominated system to improve the selection process.

James Ceaser [00:14:52]:

It doesn't work well, yeah, because it goes to the House. And as I said, that was a very difficult position and led to conflict and dissatisfaction among the American people. So don't we need another system as you say that that was, I think, the key point. And it makes this unknown person, Martin Van Buren, otherwise known maybe for the fact that this word we use, which is the second most used word in the English language, is like you walk through a campus and you hear, it's like this, it's like that. Now it was. Okay. And that supposedly came from Van Buren when he landed for president. That in his hometown was old Kinderhook in New York and that was the OK Clubs. And supposedly this has never been proven, that that became the origin of the word. Okay, so the next time you okay something, you should do so with great respect.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:15:48]:

You know, I kind of feel bad for Martin Van Buren. No one talks about him. I certainly don't speak about him very often in class. And yet he's so important. So thank you, Martin Van Buren. An interesting, again, theme here though is that this evolution of the presidential selection process away from kind of original intent was actually an improvement. That it's not necessarily a bad thing that the country moved away.

James Ceaser [00:16:11]:

Yeah, I think that's true. And Van Buren had personal reasons as well. We can talk about this. The reasons from the point of view of the country were important, but Van Buren had the point of view that up to this point in American politics, all the people who had been presidents were either sons or related to the founders or famous like Jackson himself. And yet now was the time when that generation was passed and Van Buren wanted to provide different grounds for becoming president in the new America to come, namely that you were a good politician. You didn't have to be a superstar or the son of a superstar or the wife, in the case of Michelle of A superstar. You didn't have to be that. You had to show that you could rise in American politics by being an effective politician and bringing different capabilities to the office of higher office in the United States. And I think that was an important point as well. And afterward, of course, you begin to get people like that. That form as President of the United States. And no one's asking, was your father a president? And before that, something in the Revolutionary War or a founder or whatever words they were using to sanctify that first generation.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:17:23]:

Right. So they prevent this kind of installation of an American aristocracy. In a way, I'd say that.

James Ceaser [00:17:30]:

That would be a good way of putting it. Not all of them really deserve the title of an aristocrat, but I suppose you could say that that was important. But look at the quality of people that you had as the first president. It's amazing. In Washington, I don't think there's a better person, a better statesman the world has ever had than Washington. And then you have Jefferson and Adams. Adams and both of them were towering intellects. Jefferson is sort of a genius. Adams is a great, great scholar. Madison, I think one of the smartest people he knew the first half, and I think only the first half of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Law is better than any person I know, including everyone in France. His commentaries on those are excellent. Monroe, well, maybe he lived right around Charlottesville, so that was enough to at least touch the glory of Jefferson and so forth. And then Jackson was a hero of sorts. People have different views than Jackson, but everyone knew who he was. So it was the idea of elevating someone to a president who was not well known because of something he had done before. And that was, after all, where we were coming to in the United States. The presidents after that are people known more or less, but not great figures.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:18:49]:

So between 1832, and all the way up until 1912, we used Martin Van Buren's system. We use the national party convention system. And when people think about this system, they think of smoky backrooms. They think of party elites picking the candidate that they think is most capable of winning the next election. What was wrong with this system? It gives us Lincoln. Well, that's probably the biggest thing. It gives us Lincoln. What goes wrong? What happens to Martin Van Buren's system? How do we slowly begin to move to this more plebiscite system?

James Ceaser [00:19:23]:

Yeah. Oh, you mean the one that comes later, after first we should say a thing about that system itself.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:19:30]:

Oh, please. Yes.

James Ceaser [00:19:32]:

Not much. But in a way, it proved that politicians could nominate the next president. And there was a certain safety in that arrangement. So in a way, people felt that by using this system, you had good people who were making the choice, or at least responsible people by the convention system. And as it turned out, in that system, the ones who were really running it to a large extent were people who had shown capacities to do so. It was like having. I wouldn't use an aristocratic group from that, but good politicians wouldn't. You want, you could say in the abstract, mayors, governors, and politicians having a big say in the nomination of the next president. Didn't that really make sense? Weren't they in some ways, like the electors supposed to be people competent to make a choice? That I think was the hope. They made the choice. And these people were able to choose not only themselves as electors, but all the people in the states that were working for parties because parties now became more and more important. But working for them, I mean, they were chosen by a system in which they were given jobs to work for the government because they supported a party. I mean, the ones who appointed them obviously were getting something for appointing them. You're doing this because there is a Republican and a Democratic way of delivering the mail, and the way to do it is you deliver it for my party. And they hired these people to do all these jobs in American politics. And that was thought to be a safe way of choosing the nominees. So that, I would say, is one of the main things about it, but the opposite. The problem of that system, which I said had something to say for it, was corruption. People were chosen and given jobs because they worked for the party, and they helped out the political party by doing the work of the party, meaning helping in elections to nominate other people from the party or to win elections at the state level. And the idea of politics is to win. So that was an important advantage for them on both sides. Both parties struggled to secure this advantage. So I think there was a lot to be said for this system, but it did have the problem of corruption.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:21:55]:

And that's why the progressives come after it.

James Ceaser [00:21:57]:

The progressives come after it because they're progressive, to tell you the truth. Namely, that they thought that everything in the future is going to bring greater progress than we've seen in the past. And of course, the ones who were going to bring this to the country were the ones who understood progress, and that by accident, just happened to be the progressives. So this idea of progressivism, let's say, goes all the way back to Jefferson in the United States and to the French at that time, Condorcet and Turgot. Turgot, you could say, invented the idea of progress. He looked at it and he said, don't give me the idea that we're always doing the same thing. The inevitability of history is that each generation will know more than the last generation and understand that stage after stage after stage is going to bring us greater progress in all realms, not just in the technical and scientific realms, which was just getting started, but in the moral realms as well. This became the way of thinking and actually took over how America thought in many respects, you know, like our historian Bancroft and others, and the idea of American destiny, that this was all going to come about because this was progress, and the nation that embodied progress was none other than the United States of America. This, you could say. I'm a little off the subject here, but I'll say it anyway. But Hegel, in his book on history and whatnot, indicates by saying the next stage is going to be some new stage in history, stage after stage after stage in history, and the next stage would be in the new world, and it would be something like democracy or something like that. And that's the theme of all of Bancroft's writing, that in a way, this is the spot. This is the nation that's been given the task of progress to the world to come, and this is the nation that's going to lead that crusade. And that was Bancroft and his student, more or less O'Sullivan, who came up with the idea of Manifest Destiny.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:24:04]:

But let's give the progressives just a little bit of credit here. There actually was an immense amount of corruption in the party system by the early 1900s. So they are reacting against something that is deeply felt in the population. And so they propose primaries as a way to go over the heads of the national parties to allow the people to have some greater selection in this most important office. But it's only a mixed system for the next 50 or so years. How does that even operate? How do you have primaries next to national party conventions? But primaries aren't actually that powerful yet. Can you explain to me how that worked between 1912 and 1968?

James Ceaser [00:24:44]:

Well, Wilson actually proposed in one speech the idea of a national primary. Well, he's ahead of his time, things like that. But in a way, it was logical that the Progressives were also, or said they were very democratic. Whether they were or they're not, I doubt it sometimes, depending on the day. So this was the logical next step, if you want, in a way that the people could govern. What's more important than nominating the candidates who would be president because he nominates, controls parties. Who you'd put on top is the important thing. Why shouldn't it go to those who are sovereign? That was the thinking, as well as to eliminate corruption, as you say. But this idea is to turn it over to the people who should be governing the United States, which is the people. So that was what they selected as their desired goal. So they started moving now, proposed this. It was also being proposed at other levels, not just the presidency, but it had already started at levels of lower offices in the United States as a sort of democratic move of the next phase of American politics when it came to the presidency. When they proposed this, they never succeeded in getting a majority of the states. They were right near, but not quite over the point where it was 100% sure. So in a way, you had a balance in the American system for the next many years which many people would have gone back and defended. But the balance was between states which chose their delegates on the basis of primaries, a little bit less than half, and states which chose their delegates on the basis of popular support of which candidates the members of that party from that state preferred. So that was roughly it. But the progressives, as I said, fell short. And also in these progressive primaries that were put up in many of the states, they had the people choosing the delegates, but they didn't put the name of the candidate on the ballot either. So they were a little behind the times. In a way, it was both, and you could say that gave the advantages, if you look at it, of both. The progressives had the advantage of being able to. To choose by popular means and to show something through the primaries who the people wanted. And the old system had this idea of having people who were, in a way, professionals. I use that word not in a deltaric way, but in a way that. A proud way, that these were the people who knew something about politics. And shouldn't you have someone who knows something about politics choosing the president of the United States? So the two together were on top for a long time, I would say. So I gave it the name, I think one credit for my book Presidential Second, that it was a mixed system for a long time and had the advantages of a mixed system. Right.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:27:39]:

It's this odd mixed system which died after the 1972 McGovern Fraser reforms. Right. So it's now primaries are king and that old system is just washed away. This modern system has become characterized by weak parties and by really strong Individual personalities. This is so different from the intention at the founding. What are the greatest dangers in this latest phase in this primary controlled system?

James Ceaser [00:28:12]:

I'd say that the dangers really go back when you look at it now, the nominating stages is what bothered Van Buren. The possibility of demagogic candidates who haven't been sifted through a process that assures that at least they're going to be okay. I know we had a lot of mediocre presidents. I can't remember half their names in the second half of the 19th century. All of them weren't as bad as people think, like Garfield, he was a good guy and some were, others were more or less mediocre. But they were safe mostly. That's a real credit that you're not going to be nominated as a candidate for this high office. And now as the leader of the world, whatever you want to say the United States was, you're not going to come up with someone who's really not fit for the job. And maybe you can trust people from the old system, professionals to at least assure that that would be, I think, one of the strong arguments. You won't have the great errors you did in the past. You go back to the 19th century. You see this case in the conventions. How was the convention formed in a smoke-filled room? I mean, bring together people in a smoke-filled room, not a marijuana room, but a smoke-filled room. You're going to get people who care about the well-being of the nation, or at least not having someone secondary as president. And the whole system was based on that. They didn't campaign in the 19th century for the presidency. Those running for president, they maybe let it be known that they might be interested, but they didn't show up at the convention. None of them showed up at the convention unless it was by accident that they happened to be named before as a speaker at the convention. Otherwise, they didn't show up. They instead sent their seconds to the convention to make contacts with others, to talk with others, and to begin to lay a kind of framework for their being president, but not in an open and direct way. So this was satisfactory to the American people throughout this period. And I think it has lots to say about it.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:30:17]:

It's interesting that that list that you gave us at the very beginning of what were the founders trying to prevent. What they feared in the presidential selection system were many of the dangers inherent in this latest phase, the primary phase of the presidential selection system. So Professor James Ceaser is made ruler of the presidential selection system. How do you change this system going forward? Are there any concrete reforms that states should pursue to improve the system? How do you fix this?

James Ceaser [00:30:51]:

Well, that's a tough question, but I don't think when you look at things generally that you can fix things easily by going against the movement of democracy. That's a tough sell. You have to look for other ways. We're used to thinking in democratic terms to go to the American people and say, let's give the nomination back to the bosses. This doesn't sit well. I mean, everything in ways calibrated towards looking to what the people want. Some people are worried about it. Let's say, go to the 2016 election, which was, in a way, an election that got a lot of people thinking. I remember after the election, I went to a number of conferences on this. This subject came up among academics of different ilk. Can't we go back to something? All these people who all the time called for more and more democracy in the selection process had militate in favor of this. All of a sudden they were concerned about the old party and the possible benefits that it once had as against the primaries and democracy of the new system. They were moving in that direction, but I don't think that they had a chance. There were other things that were done a little bit in this direction, actually. The Democrats, for example, a little bit early on, began talking about and instituted this thing called superdelegates. That was, instead of electing all the delegates by primaries, you'd have a number, a considerable number of delegates that would be selected because they were party figures. They didn't have to run for an office for a delegate. They were selected instead because they had worked for the party. And if they had worked for the party, isn't it natural that they should be given a certain prize for that? That they knew the party, they knew its interests, they had the fate of the party at stake. They continued to build it where the other people were. You know, I may have had a favorite, but they weren't working 100% of the time for parties. They weren't always in line with other people who wanted a change towards the rule of the people because it suited their interests and the interests of the interest groups for which they worked. That was another character of this later system. It was the people, but also the people working for different interest groups. And I think the media was moving in that direction as well.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:33:09]:

So. But you mentioned superdelegates.

James Ceaser [00:33:11]:

Super.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:33:11]:

But superdelegates have lost a great deal of power since 2016. They're basically meaningless in the Republican Party, and they are kicked off to only the second round.

James Ceaser [00:33:21]:

Right, but in the Democratic Party, that's true. A third round, maybe, but at least it was a realization on the part of the people earlier than the Trump election that it was a good idea to have some professionals. That was the first time they were willing to stand up since 1787 and say something in favor of something like a responsible decision maker. So I thought that was a nice thing to occur. But as you saw, this time they could have some role, but not a significant role.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:33:52]:

Right. There was a popular uprising, especially in the Democratic Party, against superdelegates. So, as we say, they're much weaker in 2024, which gets to your point that it's so difficult to unravel this system. We seem to have been on this inexorable march towards a popular system, towards a deeply plebiscitary system. And are there any kind of safeguards that can be implemented now, or is it simply too late? Are we just going to keep moving forward? Superdelegates are not about to get more powerful. They're going to get less powerful with each convention. So what can we do? Is it simply we're moving in that direction? Are there any kind of safeguards that you would say, put these in now to try and counter?

James Ceaser [00:34:33]:

I'm not sure that there are. That there's a willingness to do this. The other thing that may have helped, when you look back, I don't want to be partisan here in any way. I never am. But the fact that after 2016, which you could say was the high point of a very strange election, I mean, you could say Trump was double what you would fear in the abstract. He hadn't been a Republican before. He had been on the side of every issue you could imagine. He was a millionaire and a movie star with no real important role in politics. How the heck did he become nominated as President of the United States and run against some pretty good people, or so you could say, Cruz? I mean, not a bad person. Little Marco. I'm sorry, Marco Rubio. These were qualified politicians, to say the least, and others were in it, too. Why shouldn't they have gotten somewhere? Instead, they got nowhere and Trump won, you could say, in an outrageous way. I mean, he sensed something about what the American people wanted, but he was able to win this election by simply wiping out these alternatives, making fun of Cruz's father, and thing after thing after thing. And of course, afterward, people look back and they say, well, we had Trump and a lot of people liked him. And they weren't about to make this big issue that we. We have to get rid of democracy because we had Trump. A lot of people spoke in those terms, especially, as I said, when you went to these conferences, because no one at this conference, I can assure you, was for Trump. That's inconceivable. They were intellectuals of some sort and therefore for sure were against Trump. And they had a lot to say about the character of this. But we've become used to this and to the sort of candidate ideas. So that lost movement and favor of anything like the superdelegates, I think, for being those who would select our nominees.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:36:24]:

So primaries are here to stay. No matter how much I dislike primaries. And I.

James Ceaser [00:36:28]:

You're saying this, Savannah, on your authority.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:36:30]:

No, no, I'm asking you. Primaries are here to stay. We're not going to roll these back. No matter how much I'd like to. Primaries are here to stay. Has there been some kind of counter-movement with the installation, the last-minute installation of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee? She didn't win any primaries. Her selection was purely by the party. Is that kind of a counter-movement?

James Ceaser [00:36:55]:

In and of itself?

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:36:56]:

Yes.

James Ceaser [00:36:57]:

I wouldn't say that. I mean, when you look at why she was there, it was partly luck that she happened to be in that place. I'm not talking about the whole system that brought her there, but people looking at the Democratic Party at this point, I think he'd come to the conclusion that maybe Biden was a good president. Maybe he had done well. I mean, he thought he was a good president. A lot of people did. It wasn't so bad, but a lot of people thought he was kind of weak as president, you know, not at the top of the list of popularity. And of course, the other thing that loomed was his age and senescence which was coming with it. I think this was obvious to almost everyone, whatever they said, maybe even the New York Times would admit that this was the case with him. So when people looked at it wisely, I think they looked at it and they said, well, maybe he can make it through to the end of this term. He only has a few months to go and avoid a big and difficult time. He can make it through, but certainly, he can't make it through the next four years. I think that was a unanimous conclusion, unanimous among the Democrats. So in this way, how do we get rid of Obama? Plus, I think they made a calculation that in the case of Biden, it was going to be difficult, period. And the next term, the person if the Democrats were to win, the next election would be the vice president. And there was no way that Biden was going to get rid of Harris. I mean, he had chosen her for a certain reason. She was there. I'm not saying she was good. I'm not saying she was bad. She was quiet. So that was going to be the next president anyhow. I think a lot of people thought, so go with her and maybe she'd turn out better than people thought. Let's face it, she hadn't distinguished herself. We look at Harris from the last, say, two months, and obviously she's come up in the status of the American people. She's a pretty good speaker. She did well in the debate against Trump. I think probably you could say she had the better in that particular exchange. Trump was all right, but he wasn't at his high point. So people have come to like her. And in any case, this has made people a little bit more confident of her, maybe at least Democrats, but she should win. So I don't see this having this effect.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:39:17]:

Okay, so this is just a blip. It's not a sign of a push against the primary system. Primaries are here to stay. Buckle up, America. We're stuck with them. So thank you for your time today. I think this has been very useful. I think our listeners will have taken a lot away from the history of the development of the presidential selection process and kind of its gradual and inevitable path to the plebstitarian system that we have in Bemoan today.

James Ceaser [00:39:46]:

Well, thank you, Eccles. It's been nice chatting with you.

Savannah Eccles Johnston [00:39:49]:

We're just beginning to explore the rich left legacy of America's Constitution. If today's discussion deepened your understanding, share this episode with a friend or student and subscribe to continue learning with us. For more insights and exclusive content, visit www.uvu.edu. Thank you for joining us and we look forward to exploring more with you on this Constitution brought to you by the UVU Center for Constitutional Studies, home to Utah's Civic Thought Leadership Initiative.