The Democrat Primary System Is Broken & It's Hurting Our Democracy
The Democrat Primary System Is Broken & It's Hurting Our Democracy
MAGA extremism thrives on low voter turnout, Democrats must instead lead by example to facilitate maximum turnout at every opportunity
This piece is going to upset some, but I’m hopeful you’ll read all the way through before passing judgement. Let me start by stating that I believe President Biden was right to withdraw, that VP Harris is the best chance we have to beat Trump this November, and that she will win if she upholds justice on these three pillars.
Now let me get to the point. Right now, the Democratic Party has a broken primary system that is hurting our democracy, and this simply cannot continue. A popular tweet that goes viral every election season goes something like this:
At 55% voter turnout, Republicans win.
At 60% voter turnout, Democrats win.
At 65% voter turnout, there's an Obama-like rout.
At 70% voter turnout, there's no longer a Republican party.
Stop complaining, vote blue no matter who, and let’s save our democracy.
I do not know who first coined this tweet, but its message is clear—the more people vote, the stronger our democracy remains, the more robustly our republic withstands challenges to its existence, and the more accurately our government reflects the will of the people. All great ideals.
And while I don’t know many Democrats who would disagree with the above in principle, when it comes to practical application, the narrative shifts and primaries are shouted down. The fact is, “vote blue no matter who” is a hollow phrase when the “blue” isn’t chosen via a robust primary. We already know the Republican party is anti-democracy, and that’s why it is so much more critical that the Democratic party does everything it can to be pro democracy at every opportunity.
President Biden is being hailed as a selfless patriot for withdrawing from reelection. But we must acknowledge that his decision to do so at the last possible minute and then immediately endorse VP Harris to the presidency is—as a strategy to foster democracy—unsustainable and problematic. This approach is not how we strengthen democracy, not how we maximize turnout, and not how we ensure our elected leaders reflect the will of the people. As always, I bring the receipts to back up what I mean.
Let’s Address This.
How We Got Here
Back in 2020 President Biden ran for President on the promise of being a “bridge President” to a younger generation, suggesting he would only serve one term and then pass the torch. At numerous rallies he loudly declared,
Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. I view myself as a transition candidate.
It was with that explicit expectation that a monsoon of young voters helped him cross the finish line, earning 7 million more votes than Donald Trump. But when it became clear that President Biden had no intention of stepping down, those who suggested he follow through on his campaign promise were dismissed, decried, and denounced. Even as poll after poll showed that Biden’s support among the young people who helped him win in 2020 was all but gone, those who believed Biden should withdraw were shouted down. If you don’t believe me, simply glance at the onslaught of critical responses to any elected or candidate who suggested Biden should withdraw. Here’s a mere snapshot of the hundreds of angry responses Democratic candidate Adam Frisch got for calling on Biden to withdraw on July 2.
Known moderates like Rep Adam Schiff, Senator Mark Warner, and Senator Chuck Schumer all received similar backlash for suggesting President Biden withdraw. In hindsight, Frisch was right. As of the writing of this article, the Harris for President campaign has raised a historic $81M in just 24 hours. People are excited about a younger candidate, a female candidate, a Black candidate, an Asian candidate—people are excited about the next generation Biden promised he would be a bridge towards.
But the abuse Frisch and many others received who simply wanted Biden to uphold his campaign promise, should not have happened. The abuse many received simply for calling for a robust primary, should not have been received. By staying in as long as he did, despite promising otherwise when elected, President Biden denied the American people of a robust primary that would have given us a stronger candidate and party. And yes, that candidate may well have still been Kamala Harris, but it is critical to realize the ends don’t justify the means here. The primary process allows voters to have their voice heard and their candidate given a shot. Denying that process alienates voters in the general, and as the data below shows, every percent makes a critical difference to ensuring we maintain a healthy sustainable democracy.
How Valuable Is a Robust Primary Anyway?
In a word, priceless. If we truly care about a thriving democracy, we must champion robust primaries at every opportunity because it is the best way to maximize voter turnout for the general and stave off fascist takeover attempts like Project 2025. Recall the aforementioned tweet about turnout and consider these historical facts.
In 2008 the Democratic party had a robust 10 candidate primary. Rather than anointing any candidate, Americans got to see a dynamic young candidate from Illinois make his case. The end result? President Obama made history as the nation’s first Black major party nominee for President, made history as the nation’s first Black President, winning by an astounding 9.5 million votes, and decimated the Republican nominee McCain 365-173 in the Electoral count. Voter turnout was at a historic 61.6%—a level that won Democrats the White House, the House, and the Senate.
In 2016 the Democratic Party cleared the field for Hillary Clinton. To be sure, I believe she likely would still have been the nominee were there a comprehensive and robust primary. But we weren’t afforded that. My statement is not opinion. The DNC itself acknowledged in 2016 it unfairly favored Hillary Clinton. As the Party establishment coalesced around Clinton, it left many Democratic primary voters upset at an unfair fight. And in the general, despite winning the popular vote by 3 million votes, Clinton lost the Electoral count 227-332. Voter turnout dropped to 59.2%—a drop that cost Democrats the White House, the House, and the Senate.
I want to emphasize this key point. A 2.4% drop in turnout was the difference between controlling all of the White House, House, and Senate, and controlling none of them.
In 2020 the Democratic Party began a robust 28 candidate primary (though somewhat hindered as Obama eventually helped clear the field for Biden). Still, the size of the primary better pressure tested Biden and forced him to rise to the occasion to win. Biden won by 7 million votes and won the electoral count 306-232. Moreover, that primary helped provide data and insight into selecting a VP candidate that would most strengthen the ticket, i.e. Kamala Harris. Voter turnout was at a historic 66%—a level that once again won Democrats the White House, the House, and the Senate.
The ACA, the Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPS Act, and countless more critical life saving pieces of legislation, all made possible by Presidents elected via a robust primary that maximized voter turnout and decimated Republican opposition at the ballot box. That is how critical robust primaries are to not only protecting our democracy, but to advancing the causes of justice in the United States.
Now, as the party coalesces around Harris for President, the lack of a robust primary in 2024 means we lack the critical data, tested polls, and tested campaign trails that we would have had when selecting the best possible VP candidate to strengthen the Democratic ticket. My fear is the lack of a robust primary in 2024 risks a result like that of 2016—and given the fascist Project 2025—a loss this time could quite literally mean the end of our democracy as we know it. We cannot allow that to happen.
Listen To Young People
Preventing fascism means listening to young people. The Democratic Party cannot merely talk about protecting democracy, we must act on proven models to maximize voter turnout, strengthen our democracy, protect our republic, and ensure our elected representatives truly reflect the will of the people. In particular, young people who helped Democrats win in 2020. After being promised a bridge presidency in 2020, Gen-Z has made no secret about their disappointment in lack of options for President in 2024. Given their massively growing influence, it’s unwise to ignore Gen-Z.
It’s easy to understand why. Gen-Z voters are drowning in student debt, unable to afford out of control home prices, and devastated about the climate crisis. Few demographics better understand the struggles of working Americans today than do Gen-Z Americans, making it no surprise that they are turned off by the 2024 election. The 2020 election proved that when you inspire young voters, you win across the board. Thus, it behooves the Democratic Party to listen to our next generation of voters and leaders to ensure Democrats earn that vote this November, and beyond.
In Conclusion
I felt compelled to write this piece because my commitment is to uphold justice above all else—including above party lines—because we can only form a more perfect Union on the tenets of absolute justice, and by maximizing the number of people we include in the democratic process. I was shocked to learn that with Biden’s withdrawal, this is the first time since 1976 that the Presidential ballot does not have a Bush, Clinton, or Biden on the ballot. In a functioning democracy, three families should not dominate the most powerful office in the land for half a century—yet here we are.
The data is clear. When we have high voter turnout, Democrats win. Republicans know this, and it’s one reason they’ve repeatedly voted to block voting rights legislation. The data is also clear that when we have a robust Democratic primary, we win not only the White House, but also the House and the Senate. We can then pass historic legislation to form the more perfect Union we are called to create—including voting rights, reproductive health access, a higher federal living wage, police reform, the PRO Act, and the list continues.
Knowing what seismic progress we can achieve when we maximize voter turnout, why does the Democratic establishment insist on denying Democratic voters the opportunity to ensure an open and clear primary every election cycle? It is simply inexcusable. But it does not have to be this way. After winning this November, let us commit that in future elections, ‘vote blue no matter who,’ is more than just a catchy slogan. Instead, is a declaration earned by putting forth the best candidate possible after a truly open and transparent primary—one that ensures none other than We The People select our nominee. That’s how we truly save our democracy.
Why Your Support Matters: Every dollar we spend is a vote for the kind of future we want. Help me create a future more committed to justice and universal human rights. Subscribe, and I welcome your thoughts, feedback, and insights. Thank you.
Agreed. I’m still pissed off about the DNC & Bernie in 2016. And 2020.
And let’s also look at time and money. Great Britain & France held elections in very short time frames- about what we have from Biden’s withdrawal to November. Less time, less money, less annoyance might create greater turnout. Worth a try!
Hello Quasim, appreciate the intent and clarity of this article. However, it has been pointed out elsewhere that planning for primaries are initiated soon after an election, and that if Biden had stated his intention to be a one term president at that time, he would have been somewhat of a lame duck president. (He could have however stated he would not run, say in Feb-March 2024...) So that suggests that the primary system itself needs to be overhauled. Why is it that Europeans have successful, very short primary seasons and our drags on into years???