THE CASE FOR KEEPING PRIMARIES:
A Defense of the Old, Flawed, Beautifully American Way of Choosing Candidates
There’s a certain kind of political reformer who wakes up every morning convinced that the biggest problem in American democracy is that elections are too simple. These folks want to fix what isn’t broken, reinvent what works, and replace a system that has survived civil wars, depressions, and the invention of TikTok with something that looks like it was designed by a committee of graduate students who’ve never knocked a door in their lives.
And every few years, they come bearing gifts:
Ranked‑choice voting. Jungle primaries. Top‑four. Top‑five. Instant runoffs. Nonpartisan ballots.
All of them sold as “modern,” “efficient,” or “fair.”
But here’s the truth: our traditional primary system is flawed — but it’s still the best thing we’ve got.
The Beauty of the Old System: Somebody Wins, Everybody Else Loses
A primary is simple.
You run.
People vote.
Somebody wins.
Everybody else loses.
The party gets a nominee.
The general election happens.
The voters decide.
It’s not perfect. It never was. But it’s clear, fast, and legitimate.
And yes — sometimes a party nominates a turkey.
Maryland Democrats did it in 1966 with George Mahoney, who ran on a segregationist platform so toxic he managed to lose Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Baltimore City in one sweep. That takes talent. The voters corrected the mistake by electing Spiro Agnew — and whatever you think of Agnew, he wasn’t a segregationist.
The system worked.
Not cleanly. Not elegantly. But it worked.
Ranked‑Choice Voting: A Great Idea in a World Where Elections Are Free
Ranked‑choice voting sounds lovely in theory.
In practice, it’s a luxury system — the kind of thing you can only afford when elections are free, ballots are simple, and nobody minds waiting two weeks for the final tally.
But elections aren’t free.
They’re expensive.
And the more complicated you make them, the more expensive they get.
Ranked‑choice voting turns a one‑day election into a multi‑week counting marathon. It requires voter education, new machines, new software, and a tolerance for uncertainty that most Americans simply don’t have.
If you want to burn money, there are better ways.
At least fireworks are fun.
The Jungle Primary: California’s Well‑Intentioned Disaster
Then there’s California’s “top‑two” system — the jungle primary.
All candidates on one ballot.
Top two advance.
Party doesn’t matter.
It was supposed to produce moderates.
It produced math problems.
In a crowded field, you can have:
- One party winning the popular vote statewide
- But failing to place a single candidate in the top two
That’s not democracy.
That’s a sorting error.
California meant well.
But as your father said — and he was right —
“He meant well” is one of the cruelest things you can say about a person.
Maryland: Imperfect, Sensible, and Better Than the Alternatives
Maryland’s system isn’t perfect.
But it’s sane.
Democrats pick a Democrat.
Republicans pick a Republican.
The general election is a real contest between two real nominees.
If anything, Maryland’s problem isn’t that it’s too restrictive — it’s that it’s too easy to get on the ballot.
Look at Congressional District 5 this year:
23 Democratic candidates.
At least half of them are what polite people call “non‑serious” and what impolite people call “vanity candidates.” They’re not raising money. They’re not campaigning. They’re not building coalitions. They’re not even trying to win.
They’re clutter.
And clutter makes it harder for voters to learn anything meaningful about the candidates who are serious.
A petition requirement — real signatures, verified — would thin the herd.
Not to keep people out, but to keep the ballot from turning into a circus program.
The Case for Staying the Course
So yes — primaries are flawed.
They produce odd results.
They sometimes elevate fringe candidates.
They occasionally embarrass a party.
But they are:
- Simple
- Understandable
- Fast
- Legitimate
- Affordable
- Democratic in the small‑d sense
And most importantly:
They let voters choose their own nominees without gimmicks, algorithms, or political engineering.
Every alternative system promises fairness.
Most deliver confusion.
Some deliver chaos.
A few deliver outcomes so bizarre they make you long for the days when the worst thing that could happen was nominating George Mahoney.
So let the reformers tinker.
Let California experiment.
Let the ranked‑choice evangelists preach.
Maryland should keep its primaries.
Clean them up.
Tighten the ballot access rules.
But keep the core system intact.
Because sometimes the old way is the best way — not because it’s perfect, but because it’s American, and because it works well enough without breaking everything else in the process.
terrible