Listen to “Manchin Wants to Change Elections; Don’t Forget the Presidential, Joe” on Spreaker.
Joe Manchin, now a private citizen rather than a U.S. senator, doesn’t like how elections are working in this country. He’s trying to change the process, and that — perhaps more than anything else he has done — could become his legacy.
Manchin told NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas on Monday that the system is broken.
“Forty-three were predetermined. Four hundred and thirty-five congressional districts in the United States of America, 395 are predetermined, already predetermined. Something’s wrong. There’s no competition,” Manchin said, referring to the 2024 election.
Manchin appears to favor a version of a modified jungle-like primary with a handful of candidates moving to the next stage. A runoff would occur if necessary to ensure a majority.
“Open the primaries up, let people run in the primaries, and basically, then, take your top four or five, go to the general election, and make sure that when you get elected, you get elected by a majority, not plurality, just a majority, 50 plus one. Then you start having more of a representative form of government.”
There is little reason not to seriously entertain the idea, particularly if the system includes safeguards preventing a candidate from winning with only a plurality.
The concept also makes sense for presidential primaries, especially in this era where Congress has largely abandoned its role to the Executive. Why, in the name of all that is sacred, do we allow New Hampshire to shape the presidential race as it does? If New Hampshire voters are fate’s chosen presidential wine tasters, perhaps the rest of us should drink something else.
Consider what happened in 2016.
Seventeen Republicans sought the party’s presidential nomination. Granted, some candidates didn’t make it to or past the Iowa Caucuses.
New Hampshire, in its infinite wisdom — if only financial supporters would stop treating it as gospel — helped push three candidates from the race: Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and Jim Gilmore.
Who cares, you say? You should.
Perhaps you would not have voted for any of them, but wouldn’t you have preferred to retain that choice while their candidacies still had some life? Their names might have remained on later ballots, but only as an afterthought once New Hampshire and its maple-syrup eaters had diminished their credibility. New Hampshire voters effectively made part of the decision for you instead of allowing you to decide for yourself.
Who allows that? So far, we do.
Jeb Bush withdrew after South Carolina but before Super Tuesday. Granted, West Virginians love Myrtle Beach and all, but do we love South Carolinians enough to let them narrow the presidential field for us?
No. But we let them.
After Super Tuesday came the departures of Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich. By the time West Virginia held its primary on May 10, Donald Trump was the only viable Republican candidate still running.
Granted, Trump would likely have won West Virginia with all 17 candidates still in, but that win would matter all the more with the entire field still in it. Nothing about this idea is punitive to the ultimate winner, it only bolsters their win.
Manchin isn’t wrong to explore a jungle-style primary. We’ve discussed the idea dozens of times on “Talkline,” and it makes sense for several reasons.
But an even more fundamental reform would prevent states such as New Hampshire from using their privileged positions and provincial interests to trim the presidential field before the rest of the country has a say.
Note: New Hampshire has a state law designed to keep its primary first on the calendar no matter what.
States running elections is fundamental to our system at the direction of the Constitution. But when one state’s actions meaningfully affect the choices available to citizens of every other state, the arrangement warrants reconsideration.
Hold a real Super Tuesday, with every state voting on the same day. Then move the top 2 candidates to the general election allowing the electoral college system to take over.
Naysayers will insist it isn’t possible. Candidates couldn’t connect with voters everywhere beforehand, they’ll say. Blah, blah, blah.
It’s 2026. Technology has made the world a tiny place. Candidates would adjust, and so would voters — probably eagerly — if doing so ensured that Americans could vote their convictions and support their preferred candidates before voters in another state rendered those choices moot.
Informed readers will point out that presidential primaries do not formally nominate candidates; party conventions do. Exactly right. But those conventions generally ratify outcomes produced through state primaries and caucuses, where most delegates arrive pledged to particular candidates.
If the parties are unwilling to reform that process, fine. They could return to the days of smoke-filled rooms and choose their nominees without maintaining the pretense that voters nationwide have an equal opportunity to shape the result.
We would all save time. And perhaps such honesty would create more room for independent candidates in a system where unaffiliated voters are excluded from many party primaries as they are here in West Virginia, and independent campaigns face formidable barriers to becoming viable in a general election.
It’s time. Go get’em, Joe.
P.S. New Hampshire is full of fine people, and I’m sure the syrup is great. Nothing personal, Granite Staters!