The main election each year is referred to as a general election. Primary elections are held in order to determine most of the candidates who are on the general election ballot. (The exception is that, in some states, third partiers and independents are nominated by processes other than a primary.) There are four broad kinds of primaries and the differences between them are important to understand, as they involve some of the fundamental processes of our republic.
These four broad types are the caucus/convention system, the closed primary, the open primary, and the jungle primary. There are a few other terms you may hear, but they largely fall into or near one of these four categories. Let’s explore what each one entails.
The caucus/convention system is where each party holds a meeting, known as a “caucus” or “convention,” where the party members gather to select the candidates which will appear on the ballot in the general election. Third parties and groups of independents often nominate via this process, even in states with other primary systems. Generally, caucuses and conventions are free for the taxpayer.
In a closed primary, each party holds a standardized election where the party members can vote to select the candidates who will appear in the general election. These primaries are often paid for by the taxpayer. Further, third parties and groups of independents are often not allowed to hold their own primaries, but are forced to nominate their candidates by petition instead. This raises an issue of taxation without representation, whereby independents are forced to pay for an election in which they cannot vote.
The open primary is where each party holds an election during which anyone can vote to select the candidates who will represent the party in the general election. They are also paid for by the taxpayer but do not have the taxation without representation issue.
In a jungle primary, one election is held for all parties (and independents, etc.) to select which candidates will appear in the general election. They are paid for by the taxpayer. Normally, the top-performing candidates are chosen out of the jungle primary to participate in the general election, regardless of party; this can lead to situations where one of the main parties fields candidates but none of them pass the primary, as happens sometimes in California.
Interestingly, the jungle primary behaves very similarly to a general election that uses a caucus/convention system, with three key distinctions. What this means is that, often, party members will gather in meetings, also called “conventions,” to decide which candidates to endorse in the jungle primary. The jungle primary then effectively acts as the general election, and the actual general election then effectively acts as a runoff.
The jungle primary comes with three major differences from the caucus/convention system. One is that the party conventions are less open and regulated than they are under the caucus/convention system, potentially making party endorsements a less transparent and democratic process. Secondly, turnout is markedly lower in jungle primaries than it is in general elections, even where they take on the role and importance of the general election. Finally, parties cannot fully control who appears on the jungle primary ballot but only endorse — this means that the party cannot determine who gets to use their name.
Both open primaries and jungle primaries have this issue whereby the party cannot control who uses their name. This is important because party members have an inherent incentive to nominate good candidates to use their names. If they nominate a bad candidate, the party will get a bad name, and thus the party members will get a bad name. However, when non-party members get to vote in the party’s primary as in an open primary, they don’t share this incentive. In fact, one party’s members may vote in another party’s primary in order to make sure the second party nominates a bad candidate so that the first party’s candidate wins. The Democratic Party is already doing this in Republican primaries by way of ad buys, and it would not be surprising to see voters doing this in the future.
The caucus/convention system, on the other hand, behaves similarly to a jungle primary but allows party members to have control over their own nominations. Candidates are nominated by party members to use the party name, and then all parties can duke it out in the general election. If no candidate wins a majority, a runoff is employed, completing the similarity with jungle primaries.
I personally endorse a caucus/convention system with a runoff, which has all of the benefits of a jungle primary without any of the drawbacks. In short: all parties would hold meetings of their members to nominate candidates, and then those candidates would duke it out in the election. If no candidate wins a majority, a runoff would be held with the top-performing candidates to determine who wins.
This system solves the taxation without representation problem: there is no taxpayer-funded primary in which some taxpayers are disenfranchised. It also allows parties to retain control over their own names (thereby preventing foul play), ensures good turnout for elections, and keeps party conventions open, regulated, and transparent.
Interestingly, most countries (and most democracies) use the caucus/convention system. Other countries simply don’t hold primaries: they’re a uniquely American feature invented in the late 1800s.
My home state of Utah is currently considering whether to replace its primary system with a caucus system. I would encourage it to do so, with the caveat that a runoff should also be implemented. The Founding Fathers used caucuses in all states and runoffs in several states (MA, NH, VT, etc.), and I believe that both practices should be brought back.
