The 2024 presidential election is likely to be the first time since 1892 that an incumbent president is running against another former president. And with early primaries having such an outsized influence, the slate could be a virtual lock before Super Tuesday even rolls around—even though most Americans don’t want a Biden-Trump rematch.

John Davenport, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Fordham and former director of Peace and Justice Studies, said there are three main problems with the uniquely American presidential primary system that have contributed to this likely matchup: the scheduling of the primaries, the way the delegates are determined, and a lack of uniformity in who can vote in each primary.

‘Glaringly Unfair Tradition’

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about how political parties or their nomination processes should work, because the authors didn’t foresee the power of parties, which now set their own primaries, Davenport said. One result is that just a few states keep holding the earliest primaries.

Davenport called it a “glaringly unfair tradition” that four states have cornered the market.

“Early primaries bring huge profits to businesses in early states and give them more influence. Iowa rescheduled its chaotic caucus to just a week after New Year’s Day in 2024, and New Hampshire’s Republican primary election was eight days later, followed soon by Nevada and South Carolina.” 

While outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire are not always decisive, their small populations, combined with South Carolina’s, have enjoyed enormously disproportionate influence that can eliminate candidates who might have remained viable if the first primaries were held in more populous states, he said.

“Thus they can cut nine out of 10 American voters out of the process, especially when early frontrunners gain big leads,” he said, adding that “no other advanced democratic nation” allows this.

Lack of State Uniformity

Inconsistency in how delegates are awarded also affects who ultimately wins the party nominations.

Because the Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire operate somewhat proportionally, Nikki Haley won 17 delegates to Trump’s 33 by garnering about 40% of the combined vote in those two states. But in South Carolina’s Republican primary this month, the majority winner in each district will take all of its delegates—meaning that Haley could get 38 to 40% of the votes but gain zero delegates out of the state’s 50-delegate total, That would make it much harder for her to raise funds for the races in Michigan and on Super Tuesday in early March. Davenport said. In still other Republican primaries, a candidate finishing first gets all or most of the state’s delegates.

By contrast, in Democratic primaries in all states, each candidate gets a number of delegates that is loosely proportional to their percentage of the popular vote. 

Who Gets to Vote?

Equally inconsistent is whether a state’s primaries are open to independent voters or just those in the party holding the primary.

New Hampshire’s Republican primary was open, and many independents voted, boosting Haley’s numbers. Nevada, which this year held both a Republican primary and caucus, closed those races to independents. 

What’s the Solution?

“Congress has the authority to change the primary election calendar, rotating the chance to hold early primaries among five or six regions of the U.S., so that every state gets a fair opportunity over five or six presidential election cycles to hold high-impact primaries,” said Davenport.

Federal law could also solve the delegate problem by mandating that political parties use one method to award convention delegates in all state primaries. And by mandating open primaries in all states, federal law could help moderate candidates continue longer in tight races, he said.

“These are just a few examples of sensible and non-partisan reforms,” said Davenport.

John Davenport has taught in undergraduate and graduate programs at Fordham since 1998. He is the author of several articles and books, including 2023’s The Democracy Amendments, which attempts to synthesize two decades of creative ideas to fix the federal system into a comprehensive program.

Immigration reform is the key to both the nation’s and the Republican Party’s future, Jeb Bush told a capacity crowd on Nov. 18.

The former two-term governor of Florida made an impassioned plea for immigration reform at the 92nd Street Y, at the Forum on Law, Culture and Society’s latest conversation series.

The Q and A, which took place with forum director and Fordham Law professor Thane Rosenbaum, ranged from education and affirmative action to his older brother George W. Bush’s legacy—and how Jeb got his unique name.

But the main thrust was immigration, which Bush tackled in March 2013 with Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (Threshold, 2013), which he co-wrote with Clint Bolick.

Bush said his experience of meeting his wife in Mexico, and converting to Catholicism for her, is an example of how one can benefit from stepping outside of one’s comfort zone and embracing change.

And the need for change in this county’s immigration policies is too great to ignore, he said. The country’s birth rate is dropping, and, with regard to the population that is here illegally, 40 percent did not sneak across the border, but rather came here legally and overstayed their visas, he said. And of the 1 million highly skilled workers who are employed in the United States on H1-B visas, only 200,000 are granted green cards allowing them to stay permanently. 

“I am sympathetic to people who are thinking that somehow our culture changes with immigration, in a bad way, [although]history would suggest that it has enriched and made our culture unique and special and enriched us in ways that are immeasurable,” he said. “But at a time when people are anxious about their future and anxious about their families, you can see why people would be quite resistant.”

Bush also noted that, from a demographic standpoint, the Republican Party particularly needs to reach out to Hispanic and Asian immigrants. His father, George H.W. Bush, may have won the presidency in 1988 with 60 percent of the white vote, but Mitt Romney lost in 2012 with the same percentage.

“If you have a message that is not inclusive for all, and somehow people have turned off even listening to you, you’re not going to get their votes. It’s just that simple,” he said.

Ironically, Bush noted that immigrants are exactly the kind of people who would be receptive to the Republican Party.

“They’re the ones who don’t get in lines for government programs. They’re the ones that risk everything to come here to be able to put food on the table for their families,” he said.

“Those that want to come and stay here and embrace our values are going to be conservative if we let them be.”

Asked by Rosenbaum if moderate Republicans, such as himself and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, could find common ground with the Tea Party faction that has risen through the ranks of congressional Republicans, Bush chafed at the description.

“We had such a nice conversation; why did you have to go and call me a moderate?” he said.

“I was brought up to be temperate. It’s okay to have a message that’s not nasty or mean-spirited. The harshness of our message is the bigger issue than the nuances and different strains of conservative thought. I’m a conservative, and I’m a practicing one. I’m not a talking one.”

When asked if he’d run for the president in 2016, Bush demurred, saying whoever does run should reorient the party so it isn’t simply known for its opposition to President Obama.

 “We have to create an agenda that restores our confidence that we can be better than we are today, and you can’t do that just in pure reaction to what the other guy says,” he said.

Overview

You’re wondering whether the Republican Party is going to re-shape itself by the mid-term elections next year. So is Eric Cantor. The House Majority Leader is allied with the Tea Party and Paul Ryan, but has also acknowledged the importance of broadening the party’s appeal. So–would he take the party harder to the right or soften some of its edges? Forum Director Thane Rosenbaum will push past the political rhetoric as he questions Cantor about his future and the GOP’s.

This event is co-produced with the 92nd Street Y.

Bio

Eric Cantor

From Richmond, Virginia, he was elected to Congress in 2001 and became the Majority Leader in 2011. He is the co-author of Young Guns: A New Generation of Leaders. More

That was the message Richard A. Galen delivered on April 8 to a crowd at the McNally Amphitheatre on Fordham’s Lincoln Center campus.

In his talk, “Resurrecting the GOP: Bringing Back the Party of Lincoln in the Era of Obama,” Galen, a columnist, political strategist and press secretary for high-ranking Republicans, took pains to note that though the situation may seem bleak for the GOP, the political current can change quickly.

He noted that George W. Bush had similar poll numbers in April of his first year to Barack Obama’s current numbers, even though Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore. The analogy to national politics he offered was body surfing, which requires a person to match his or her momentum to that of a wave.

“The secret to any political operation is judging where you are on that wave, and making sure that you’re paddling, so that when you are on the upswing, you’re ready for it,” he said.

Galen said Republicans could learn from the Bush administration’s mistaken belief that it didn’t really need to explain itself to the public.

“There’s an old saying in politics, that if you don’t define yourself, your opponent will do it for you. And that works in policy too. If you don’t define your policy, then your opponents will do it for you, and once you get on the wrong side of that policy debate, it’s very difficult to get back.”

There are other parallels between Obama and Bush, Galen said, including how the Obama administration is using the global recession exactly how the Bush administration used 9/11—to pass a raft of new legislation while the nation is in panic mode.

Galen said Republicans should describe a policy future that will be uncomfortable for a majority of Americans, and say, “Let’s back off a little before we go charging down this road.”

Republicans can do this because they understand the effects of economic change and economic theory, and can sell their vision as the future Americans probably would want, if the GOP can explain it properly.

“You have to provide an alternative future, not an alternative present. I think that’s where Republicans in the House and Senate are making a mistake. They’re trying to do battle with their counterparts on a day-by-day basis,” he said. “Don’t worry about what’s happening today, but look out and say, ‘If we do this, then that’s the future.’”

Galen’s talk was sponsored by the Fordham Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy.