The Maine Crisis: Separating Selection from Election

As the midterm elections heat up, Maine has emerged as the latest political flashpoint after controversial Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s campaign went up in smoke. Platner’s case demonstrates the dangers of conflating elections with candidate selection, as has become common in America. It is time to separate the selection of candidates from the general election via the privatization of political parties and the opening up of general election ballots.

In a video ending his campaign, Platner defiantly complained that he was being undone by “corporate media” and the “political establishment” acting as “judge, jury, and executioner.” He claimed that he could not succeed without the resources of the Democratic Party and bemoaned that in America, “We live in a political system that is not built for normal people.” Reflecting on who should replace him, Platner emphasized that the choice should rest with the “people” who “voted against the political system.”

As primaries have become the dominant form of candidate selection, many, Platner and his supporters among them, have appealed for greater democratization of this system. This has only increased as primaries have become the decisive election in more and more cases. But parties are institutions, and the nomination of candidates is an institutional decision. Platner is correct that many in the Democratic establishment wanted an end to his campaign, but a party should have control over the slate of candidates who carry its name. The solution here is not democratization of the primary system but privatization of our political parties and equitable access to the ballot for all candidates.

Political parties serve an important role in politics, especially in a country as large and complex as the United States. They organize voters around a set of policy positions, select candidates to advance those priorities, and mobilize to elect those candidates. When candidate selection is outsourced to some segment of the electorate, parties weaken, and platforms become nearly meaningless. Parties should select candidates through the method of their choice, provided they do so with their own funds and not taxpayer dollars, and they should retain the ability to veto candidates if they are deemed to no longer be adequate representatives.

At the same time, parties should not enjoy privileged access to the ballot. Securing a private organization’s nomination should not automatically earn you a spot on a public ballot. Instead, states must apply a common threshold of signatures or something comparable to all candidates, with or without a party endorsement. Those who generally identify with a party but are not the endorsed candidate should still be able to qualify for the ballot on the same terms. A special designation can identify party standard bearers on the ballot, while all other candidates should be able to self-describe. It is true that, as Platner points out, party-endorsed candidates will carry an advantage in terms of resources. However, this is the purpose of political parties and the reason they should choose who gets their resources. Other candidates are welcome to seek out their own funding or form new parties in this more competitive environment.

It is at this point, when a general election ballot is formed, that democracy and the will of the people should become the dominant factor. The candidate selection process should not be determinative of the election winner. Under this system, states can choose their own method for whittling down what is sure to be a larger ballot. Maine, for example, already uses a ranked-choice voting system that could select a majority winner from among multiple competitors in a competitive field.

If the system proposed here were already in place, the Democratic Party could have selected a candidate it wanted, while Platner could have accessed the ballot without the need for engaging with the “political establishment.” Had Platner still been the Democratic candidate, the party could still select a replacement, and Platner’s supporters could coalesce around him or some other individual if that replacement failed to satisfy them. Ultimately, in Maine, as around the country, candidate selection determines too much, and the general election determines too little. Party discipline and democratic will are both crucial, and they should be reserved for their proper places to the benefit of both our parties and the voters.