Ep. 8: BPC Director of Structural Democracy Michael Thorning

The Ballot Box Briefing is a weekly segment on Sirius XM’s The Briefing, that examines the issues and storylines at the heart of running an efficient and accurate election. Guests include election administrators, local, state, and federal officials, cybersecurity experts, legal analysts, and members of BPC’s Democracy Program.

On the heels of Super Tuesday, BPC’s Michael Thorning joined the show to discuss the presidential primary process and how it differs from congressional primaries, as well as how political incentives are hindering bipartisanship in Congress.

Transcript

The following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

STEVE SCULLY (SS): Normally, Super Tuesday is a decisive and important day, but that’s not the case in 2024. What does that say about the state of our presidential primaries? 

MICHAEL THORNING (MT): I think it raises a lot of questions that have come up since 2012, and especially in 2016 and 2020, about our system for each party getting their nominee. We saw a lot of complaints come from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party in 2016; they thought the party was putting their thumb on the scale too much for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And, in the Republican Party, there was a lot of consternation about how their rules and processes made it very difficult for anyone to win the nomination other than Trump, once Trump started winning. Then in 2020, there was a competitive Democratic primary and we started seeing a lot of disagreement within the party about who the nominee should be and whether the primary was actually achieving that nominee. 

There are always these complaints, typically from someone who’s not from the establishment wing of the party, that the system is set up to favor who the establishment wants. I think it’s always up to interpretation whether the candidate they got is what the general public wants right now. Our current candidates, Trump and Biden, are maybe not what the general public wants right now. But some might argue that they previously were not the candidates that the establishment wanted. 

SS: Good point. On Monday, we spoke with Nick Troiano about his new book on the primary process. I know you’ve had a chance to talk with him and discuss the book. How do you fix the primary system in this country? 

MT: We’ve got two very different primary systems. I think when most Americans think about elections, they think about the presidential election. Presidential elections have a unique primary system. Often states have different rules for a presidential primary than what we would see for a congressional primary or state office primaries. Some states have different rules about whether independents can participate, whether you have to be a registered party member to vote in that party’s primary, whether you can switch between parties for congressional versus presidential primaries – it’s quite a mix. 

I think the challenges with each are very different. The presidential primary involves a lot of party rules that vary by state and it involves rules that the national parties have. Whereas the rules for congressional and state office primaries are mostly set in state law. The states and their policymakers are really the ones with control over what those systems look like.  

To Nick Troiano’s point, one of the problems is that we have a growing population of people who are not affiliated with either party. For the most part, these independent voters are not getting to participate in primaries. I think that’s actually why we see some of the surprise at the outcome you get in the primary. Primaries can wind up nominating a candidate with a lot of strong support within the party. But once you factor in independents, that candidate may not be where the general election voter wants them to be. 

SS: ‘What is the incentive for bipartisanship?’ is something we talk about a lot at BPC. Part of that incentive for bipartisanship comes in the primary process. 

MT: At the moment, there is not a lot of political incentive to be seen as someone in Washington who works across the aisle and is a problem solver. That’s one reason that a lot of people opt out of Congress. It’s a reason people who probably would be great members and legislators never choose to run for Congress. 

A lot of voters in the primary, who are typically party members, have strong partisan views. They’re not interested in sending someone to Washington who’s going to get things done, even if that means finding common ground with people you disagree with. They want someone who’s going to go to Washington and enact the party’s agenda at all costs. The incentives are really misaligned from what our current system produces versus what we want to get when those people come to Washington. 

Look at recent news: Senator Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, who certainly has a reputation as a deal maker, found herself challenged by another Democrat in that state’s primary. She decided to become an independent and eventually realized that the pathway was just not there for her as a candidate. I think the open question everyone is really wrestling with is ‘how do you change those incentives?’ 

SS: A cornerstone of our democracy is trust and faith in the system, but a lot of people still question 2020. 

MT: Prior to 2020 and 2016, there was already a lot of evidence that people whose candidates lose have less faith in the electoral outcome. They are more likely to think that votes were not counted correctly or that there was something else nefarious going on. That ‘sore loser’ effect has been amped up with a lot of rhetoric since the 2016 election.  

We’ve actually seen it in both parties. Obviously, we think about former President Trump and his reaction to the 2016 and the 2020 elections. But in Georgia, gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams basically refused to say that she lost the election and eventually she walked that back a little bit. Just recently, Katie Porter, who was running in the California senate primary, basically said the election was rigged because people campaigned against her using totally legal methods and tools. So that rhetoric is definitely there both on the Republican side and the Democratic side. Elected officials and candidates need to be really circumspect about using that language. If you say the election is rigged but what you really mean is you don’t like the system that exists – those are two very different things. 

SS: I’ve had the chance to talk to President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama after their primaries They both said that they were better candidates in the general election because of a tough primary challenge. We didn’t see that in 2020. Do you think primaries actually strengthen campaigns and candidates? 

MT: I think that’s a widely-held belief. You do hear from candidates that having to go through this grueling state-by-state process forces them to refine how they’re talking with voters and how they’re interacting with the system. But it’s not clear that that’s the only way to make someone a better candidate or to prepare them for the challenges of the presidency. I think we should be willing to rethink totally what sort of system we need to vet someone and prepare them for all the challenges that come with the presidency. There is really nothing comparable in the world to that job. 

SS: What motivates you? How do you deal with the complexities of these issues? 

MT: I think you have to be willing to put your own beliefs aside, whether they’re policy beliefs or a partisan preference or affiliation. I have to think about things in terms of what makes a fair system that all sides can compete in. I also have to be willing to listen to people who maybe don’t share my political beliefs and to try to understand why that is. Particularly when it comes to democracy, neither party has a monopoly on good ideas. 

SS: If there was one thing that you wish people knew more or understood more about elections, what would it be? 

MT: I wish people understood more that elections are not just something that you need to be a spectator of or something over which you don’t have any control. And I don’t only mean in a partisan way. Anyone can be a poll worker and really get a sense of how the process works behind the scenes. You can be a volunteer who’s not public-facing – you could be someone who’s counting ballots. You can also do campaign activity. There are plenty of ways to get involved and have some influence over our democracy.