This is just a starting point for a discussion: perhaps instead of using the primary process to pick a candidate, and then the convention to set the national platform, we instead use the primary process to pick the platform itself.
In observing how the primary process is currently utilized by the Democratic Party for 2020, a couple things strike me in particular. One, that this kind of system is crude and does not take advantage of the internet and technology and accessibility that is now available. And two, I do not feel that the current system produces the best possible candidate to represent the Democratic Party for the position of President.
We have a system that relies heavily on televised debates, heavily on states that do not reflect the wider experience of all Americans out there, and heavily on who can raise the most cash and buy the most ad time. This path strikes me as too far separated from the vast majority of Americans, who should feel more involved in the Primary process.
When it comes to the platform that the party ends up running out nationally as part of the General Election campaigning, it depends heavily on the candidate who wins the Primary process — but at the same time, it often pulls some of the best aspects from the policy ideas of multiple candidates. But still, ultimately largely influenced by the candidate who wins out.
It almost feels like the process is backwards — rather than deciding a candidate, who then largely shapes the national platform, the party’s platform should first be established, and spend the most time debating and polishing, and then from there it can be decided what candidate would best reflect that platform.
I am not arguing that the debate should reduce down to single issues — like, what do we care about more, climate change, unemployment, or healthcare? But rather, almost every issue on which the Party focuses on — and really by extension, the vast majority of voters — there is no single right solution, with such issues that are so complex and intertwined.
For example, on the issue of healthcare, should the emphasis be on single-payer, and getting a Medicare-4-All system implemented? Or should the focus be more on incrementally improving things, such as closing the Medicaid coverage gap, increasing ACA subsidies, and expanding the insurance options available, for example? On the issue of student debt, should the focus be on student debt forgiveness, or on letting debts refinance at lower rates, or on expanding the community college system? Even on issues that are so defining to our party identity, there can be a lot of room for diverse viewpoints.
Instead of putting these critical discussions as a second fiddle to Presidential candidates, where the single winner largely gets to shape those discussions going forward, perhaps we should first devote more of the initial process to deciding what the best points are going forward, and then from those discussions, deciding which person best represents the ideas that we as a Party have highlighted.
Rather than having TV debates between Democratic candidates who largely agree on a lot of things, why don’t we first spend time figuring out the points where they actually do differ, and spend time debating which of those ideas are best, and would appeal best to a General Election electorate? Instead of focusing on prime time TV debates that really only force candidates to polish one aspect of their presentation, we expand the process to take on several media forms, to get more Americans involved, such as those who like podcasts, those who like radio, those who like internet forums such as this. Perhaps instead of candidates spending all their money on advertisements trying to get people’s attention and having to first tell people what they should care about, we instead spend that money in a way that allows us more to hear from them, and tell us directly what it is we should focus on and what will drive them to get out to the polls. And when Dem primary voters finally go to the polls in early 2020, instead of voting to decide which of the Dem candidates did better at differentiating themselves from all the others, the voting would be for what issues matter the most to them, and what they feel the best way forward for those issues would be.
Perhaps even after such a system, we still have several candidates vying to be the nominee. But I feel like, at the very least, with a re-focusing such as this one, on an actual path forward for the Party, rather than a focus on who shines the best under the stage lights, it will be a lot easier to measure up an entire candidate’s career, their background, their viewpoints, with what issues and proposals have come out as being the most important and beneficial to talk about and address.
Like I said, this is the start of a discussion. I don’t for a moment believe that everyone would agree with such a viewpoint, but in exactly the spirit that this is written about, I feel the discussion that a post like this can generate would be quite valuable.