[00:00:00] Joe Selvaggi: This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi. Welcome to Hubwonk, a podcast of Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston. Unfolding in real time is the quadrennial process of choosing our next American president. While Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution outlines the procedures for electing the president, it leaves out the specifics of how candidates should be nominated.
[00:00:25] In a process steeped in history, reform, and the vibrant energy of democracy, it has been the work of parties themselves. to shape the delicate balance among constituent voters, political professionals, and events of the day to determine the nominee. This year, the Democrat Party must also address their members concerns that their presumptive nominee, President Biden, may not have the ability to sustain a successful campaign, leaving many to consider late stage options for alternate nominees.
[00:00:56] How did our current primary system evolve? Who governs primary rules in states and at conventions? And who has the power to change the nominee as Election Day approaches? My guest today is the Keenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT, Professor Charles Stewart III, who is the Founding Director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab.
[00:01:19] Professor Stewart’s work focuses on the historical developments of committees, origins of partisan polarization, and Senate elections. He will explain how our modern primary process has evolved, Who determines and enforces primary rules, and what choices are available when nominees are either unwilling or unable to successfully campaign for president?
[00:01:40] When I return, I’ll be joined by Director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Professor Charles Stewart III. Okay, we’re back. This is Hubwonk. I’m Joe Selvaggi, and I’m now pleased to be joined by the Keenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT, Professor Charles Stewart III. Welcome back to Hubwonk, Professor Stewart.
[00:01:59] Charles Stewart III: Oh, it’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.
[00:02:02] Joe Selvaggi: Well, it’s good to have you back. It was nearly four years ago when you last joined me. You helped us sort out the complexity of trying to run a presidential election during a pandemic. Uh, uh, we’ll say it, uh, you know, it turned out okay, I suppose.
[00:02:14] Uh, today we’re going to talk about, um, uh, the election before us. We’ve got a primary process, uh, we, I suppose the votes are in, but we’re, um, recording at a time during the, uh, Republican convention in Milwaukee and soon, uh, Democratic convention in, uh, Chicago. We’re going to pick, uh, the nominees for president for the.
[00:02:34] Uh, 2024 presidential election. For the benefit of our listeners, I want to break down, uh, the process of, uh, primaries. Uh, I also want to address the fact that whereas both candidates, um, are clear, uh, both parties and many members within those parties have concerns, um, uh, either that, uh, because of age or infirmity of, of candidates or, uh, we’re recording shortly after the attempted assassination of one of the candidates, uh, former President Donald Trump, Um, events of the day can intervene in an unforeseen and unpredictable way, so we want to understand how the process is supposed to work, but also, um, what can be done, um, mid race to adapt to, uh, changing, uh, events.
[00:03:19] So let’s start at the beginning. Let’s, let’s start simple. Uh, let’s talk about the pre presidential primaries. Who defines how primaries work, both at the federal or at the state level? Where is that set up?
[00:03:33] Charles Stewart III: Well, um, so you asked us to start simple, and in some ways, this is among the most complicated parts of things to answer about.
[00:03:41] Um, I mean, the simplest way to start is just by pointing out that that primaries of all sorts, but especially presidential primaries, Um, are owned by the parties. And, um, so in a fundamental way, the parties, um, create the, the, the broad, let’s say, guardrails around which, um, they govern, um, how the process will happen.
[00:04:07] Um, but even then, you know, the, the parties themselves are, um, you know, are complex because you have the national parties and then you have the state parties. We can talk, kind of get into the details about that, but the national parties set out the broad parameters of, say, what the, um, what the season is for holding the primaries, what the rules are about binding or not binding delegates, how many delegates, allocation of delegates, things like that.
[00:04:37] And the national parties could constrain the state parties There’s a lot of difference in the decisions that the state parties are allowed to make. Um, for instance, the national parties can leave it up to the states, state parties, in how they allocate delegates. Um, or they can be very prescriptive about, um, how they can do that.
[00:04:59] And the Democrats and Republicans are different in that regard. At the same time, there’s the states. And the states actually Run the primaries. Now, there are still a few states that have caucuses, and there the parties are entirely in charge, but if, um, but if you want to run a primary, in almost all cases, it’s going to be the state that runs the primary.
[00:05:22] And the state has the caucuses. Um, a certain practical, um, um, kind of influence on this if, um, and a good example is New Hampshire, right? New Hampshire has this law, which states it has to be the first primary in the nation. Um, the Democrats, um, a while back said, um, no, South Carolina is going to be the first primary in the nation.
[00:05:45] How is that resolved? Well, New Hampshire held a primary, first one in the nation. Democrats said, okay, fine, but you’re not going to elect any delegates to our convention at this, you know, and, and so it kind of created this kind of confusion about what was going on in New Hampshire in January, right? So, you have this dance, um, and there are other examples where this, where the state governments and the national parties or the state parties kind of play a game of chicken around who’s actually going to run things and how it’s going to, how it’s going to operate.
[00:06:16] Um, nonetheless, at the end of the day. Um, it’s really the parties who are in charge. Um, not the states or even the federal government, certainly, in, um, determining how things, you know, what the rules are going to be ultimately.
[00:06:34] Joe Selvaggi: So, we have 50 states, it’s a, uh, you know, a whole array of different, uh, systems in charge there, I’d say individual state parties.
[00:06:42] I would say, again, I don’t want to speak for all primary voters in this great country, but I’d say in general, we get the sense that Individual party members go out on primary day and vote, we count up the votes, and the winner, the one with the most votes, either gets all or a proportionate share of the state’s delegates. Has it always been this way? And if not, what came before, you know, how old is what we consider normal? Uh, how did we get here?
[00:07:10] Charles Stewart III: Yeah. Um, the, the system we have right now, I would say it, it well, um, that we can demarcate history, um, in 1972. And it’s really 72 forward and, and 72 came about in reaction to the 68 Democratic Convention.
[00:07:32] And, um, the reforms, the changes that happened around there focused on the Democratic convention, but the Republicans of that era pretty much came along. So, let’s say 68 and before 68 and before, there was a mixture of methods for choosing delegates to the conventions, the conventions. were seen really as the actors in making the, making the choices, um, and there had been, um, even in the 20th century, um, going into the dimension, not quite knowing who was going to be the nominee.
[00:08:08] So some states had caucuses, other states like New, again, New Hampshire, have been holding a primary for a century. So you had a kind of a mix before 72, so we have a 50.
[00:08:20] Charles Stewart III: Go ahead.
[00:08:20] Joe Selvaggi: So just, just curious, so we have a 50-year sort of, I, I mean convention as in standard that we’ve come become used to. Is it, was it perceived, and I You’re the expert, so I’m asking this candidly, was it, let’s say a move from where, you know, in the olden days, I suppose conventions serve to determine who the nominee would be.
[00:08:39] And I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that conventions now are merely sort of rah-rah sessions where we just. You know, balloons fall out of the ceiling, and everybody cheers, so they don’t seem, they seem ceremonial, if you will, and again, I’m not putting words in your mouth, you tell me if I’m wrong. Why did we go from where we determine the candidate at a convention with, let’s say, party professionals, and now
[00:09:01] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, I think, I think it’s more ceremonial than not. Um, although, you know, kind of, it’s always been the case, and certainly for the past century, century and a half. That, um, incumbent presidents have basically been the most important player in their party.
[00:09:19] Um, and so it was pretty much all the time, although like Grant, I mean there are exceptions like President Grant, where party elders’ kind of push Grant out as an incumbent. Um, so it was celebratory like when Eisenhower was re nominated. Or, you know, those, those, those circumstances. But really, um, before 68, and certainly moving back further in time, um, in the 20th century into the 19th century, the parties could be thought about really as kind of holding companies of 50 state parties, some of which were run according to kind of quasi open um, Um, rules, but others were very much what we would imagine to be kind of, um, you know, kind of, kind of inside baseball, smoke filled rooms, sorts of, um, kind of a club.
[00:10:15] And, um, it’s not too far from reality to say in many of those states. Illinois was the most famous with Mayor Daley, Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago, but the boss, party boss of the entire state. very much. Right, really could deliver delegates, could deliver votes on election day. And so, you, and so it really was a mostly kind of 50 bull mooses in a room, um, bringing their delegates and they could pledge their entire delegation or some of their delegation if, you know, and so, so that was 1 thing.
[00:10:54] Um, there was a revolt publicly and certainly within the Democratic Party in the 68 conventions, which your listeners will know, even if they weren’t alive at the time, was a disaster in Chicago. Not only riots in the streets, but riots actually made it onto the floor of the convention and Herbert and Hubert Humphrey was nominated, despite the fact that he really didn’t run in primaries.
[00:11:22] Um, and, um, so, um, and that’s why I mentioned the McGovern Fraser Commission that really changed the rules of the Democratic Party and make it so that delegates would be chosen mostly by primaries and that they would be, um, required to vote for, you know, the, the candidate that had won that primary or that they were associated with.
[00:11:48] Certainly on the first ballot. Um, and, um, and so it’s, it’s kind of celebratory now, but it still is, well, it’s mostly more celebratory, but potentially, you Could be, um, you know, could make a decision.
[00:12:05] Joe Selvaggi: Well, that sets up my next question perfectly, which is to say, okay, we now have what we consider individual state, very sort of traditional elections.
[00:12:13] We count votes, and we figure out, you know, who won. Those delegates have their marching orders, right? Party members in their state have spoken, and they have to go to the convention with specific orders. Uh, they’re committed to that, that candidate. What I want to ask you is, you know, again, in the, let’s say, modern times, last 50 years, does that resolve things?
[00:12:31] It seems like, you know, we knew, um, uh, President Trump, or former President Trump would get the nomination, it seems, uh, and, uh, incumbent President Biden would. You know, have there been contested elections and if one, um, conventions, and if one were to be, what, what does that look like if, if there isn’t a clear winner walking into the, the, um, the, um, convention?
[00:12:54] Charles Stewart III: Well, are there contested, um, conventions? Um, there haven’t been, um, and certainly there have been, there have been instances where the, the kind of the second-place candidate has wanted to make it a contested election. And those were cases where the party was closely divided, and the famous cases were Ronald Reagan in 1976.
[00:13:15] Um, Ted Kennedy in 1980 in the Democratic primary, and then even, um, in, um, in 2016, um, there were efforts to derail, um, um, Donald Trump’s nomination and, um, kind of make the, the primary really the decider and, um, to throw it open, a so-called brokered convention. I mean, it turns out, though, that, you know, in this 50-year period, um, we’ve gone into both major party conventions.
[00:13:45] With somebody having a majority delegates, and that’s really hard to, um, dislodge, even in a situation as we find ourselves in right now, or even, you know, in 76 or 80 cases where the second-place candidate had a good argument to make that they would be the better candidate. Um, and, um, but once you’ve chosen people who are really loyal to the frontrunner, um, also, you know, the, the, the primary rules are such kind of the one who gets the most votes in states kind of gets a bonus.
[00:14:23] That’s especially true in the Republican Party, um, but also true in the Democratic Party. So, uh, you know, the frontrunner comes in with a cushion, even if their, their, you know, their support begins to kind of get soft, they’re going to have a big cushion. Um, and, um, and I’m sure we’ll talk about, um, Joe Biden in particular, but he’s going to come in with 90 percent of the delegates.
[00:14:46] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, so he could lose half of his, almost half of his delegates and still get the nomination.
[00:14:50] Joe Selvaggi: Indeed, so he has a comfortable lead and as you mentioned, this isn’t a case where we have a second-place person who’s, you know, sort of chomping at the bit, chomping at the bit, trying to say, okay, I might be better.
[00:14:59] We have really, I don’t know who second place would be really, but let’s, let’s unpack that a little further. You talked about, um, these, these delegates going to the convention. They’ve been committed. Um, I’ve read something, and in research and preparing for this, this conversation, that they’re bound in good conscience to vote for the person who they, was elected in their state.
[00:15:19] Okay, you know, there’s a lot of wiggle room in good conscience, because some would argue, again, I’m not putting, I’m not making any normative judgments, but some might say, we had no idea, um, uh, President Biden was, um, Aging the way he is, until let’s say the debate or recent gaffes, were we to have known that, we would have perhaps voted differently in our individual primaries.
[00:15:41] Now that we do know it, me as a delegate, I’m going to the convention in Chicago, do I have any prerogative? You know, I might like the guy, but, you know, conventions and primaries and parties are for winning elections. If I don’t think my guy can do it, where is, what prerogative do I have?
[00:15:59] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, well, here, here’s where the two parties are different, again, um, and, and as you said, I mean, really, I mean, we’re really talking about Biden, but it should be said, there’s something sometimes called the robot rule.
[00:16:09] The robot rules are, you know, basically bind a delegate to their person, kind of stand by my man or woman type of, type of rule that usually binds that pledged delegate to vote for their candidate on the first, on their first ballot. And in fact, like the Democratic Party rule, actually, I’m sorry, the Republican Party rules allow delegates to be replaced on the, you know, on the fly if they vote for the wrong person.
[00:16:39] or not, for those votes not to be recognized. And so, um, the Republicans still have, um, a strong version of the robot rule. The Democrats have a weak version of the robot rule, as you, as you just mentioned, which is that they, um, their delegates are required to vote in good conscience to reflect the sentiments, um, of those who elected them.
[00:17:03] But we have to recognize that the delegates at the state level or the congressional district level, however the states allocate them, are identified by the political parties, or I’m rather the candidates, as people who are loyal to those candidates. Um, and so I won’t say that, you know, the Biden delegates are like the Stepford Wives, but, um, you know, in that sense, but you don’t get to be a Biden delegate unless you’re willing really to go to Matt for Joe.
[00:17:37] And I think it’s kind of, um, really wishful thinking to imagine that there’s going to be really kind of a come to Jesus moment, um, in the Democratic, um, convention, unless Biden himself instructs his delegates not to vote for him and to find somebody else.
[00:17:58] Joe Selvaggi: So, uh, accepting that, that eventuality, if Biden doesn’t say, I’m sorry guys, uh, I’m going to pass the baton, uh, if he wants the nomination, there’s almost no choice, conscience or otherwise, for delegates to change horses this late in the race.
[00:18:13] Charles Stewart III: Oh yeah, no, they’re, um, yeah, they’re, they’re, they got their guy. Got their guy.
[00:18:19] Joe Selvaggi: Right, okay, so we talked about sort of primaries, we’re leading up to conventions, what about, okay, we have a nomination. Um, but, current events happen. I’m going to You know, again, we keep talking about President Biden, but, uh, the horrible, um, uh, event that happened past weekend, uh, uh, uh, assassination attempt.
[00:18:36] Look, these guys are both 178, 181, actually at our tables, hey, it could be a heart attack. Where is it that, um, let’s say, parties and process, and we’re still not at election day, were something terrible to happen? Either they you know, become incapacitated or die. What happens, let’s say, as we approach Election Day?
[00:18:54] Where, what, where does the party, where do delegates, are these all, you know, active participants? Until Election Day or something else happens, if it happens after the convention.
[00:19:06] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, um, it kind of depends on how close you are to Election Day. And this is where, um, kind of the, kind of the, I won’t call it loosey goosey, but kind of the ambiguous nomination.
[00:19:20] The role of the parties comes up against, um, our constitution, quite frankly, national, um, laws. I mean, Congress has mandated, ah, ah, so we’re coming back to our discussion four years ago about voting during the, during, um, the pandemic, and what I was saying four years ago, I don’t know if I said it, um, on this, on this, um, broadcast, but even if the zombies are in the street, um, And the, uh, and the asteroids are raining down on us on election day.
[00:19:52] We’re going to have an election. We have no choice, right? And so even if the, you know, one of the presidential candidates gets hit by a bus the day before the election, we’re going to have the election the next day. And the only person for that party on the ballot will be that person, right? So we can’t, like, most of the rest of the democratic world, we couldn’t postpone.
[00:20:15] We don’t have any of that flexibility. Um, and that’s where I think. Um, a lot of the ambiguities and the chaos would emerge, um, because now if you’re really close to me, if you’re kind of far from the election, like, if it were to happen, like, like the week after the, after the conventions. There would be time for, you know, the national committees have mechanisms for naming replacements for their nominees.
[00:20:47] And the best, um, historical example was in 1972, when the Democrats had to replace their vice presidential nominees, the DNC, that, that, that replaced them under the party rules. And the party rules have ways of replacing nominees. Um, but if the ballots have been printed, and if people are already voting, Then you’re left with a position of people voting for somebody who is incapacitated or is no longer alive, and then what to do.
[00:21:18] Um, and, um, I think there we’re up against, um, norms and what the laws are in the states about what electors can do. Um, yeah, so I’ll stop there. I mean, there’s details that we can, we can dig into, but that’s, that’s, I’ll stop for a moment right there.
[00:21:42] Joe Selvaggi: Well, let’s, let’s not have such a grim possibility, you know, scenario play out.
[00:21:46] Let’s just talk about, you know, there’s certainly a healthy movement to try to persuade people. Uh, President Biden to step aside and perhaps let someone, uh, let’s say, more viable or more electable, uh, take his place. There’s a lot of question about, uh, money. A lot of people give money to the actual president himself.
[00:22:05] This is not super PACs or, uh, political, uh, committees. These are, the president himself has a, a war chest. I think all in is something like 240 million. That’s people writing checks to him or his re election. What happens to those monies were a leading candidate to say, you know, I’m sorry, uh, I’m gonna, you know, retire at the end of my term.
[00:22:28] Where does that go?
[00:22:30] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, it kind of depends. I mean, it depends on when they, when they bow out. Um, if they are not the nominee, like, um, so I mean, so let’s just focus because we know what we’re talking about. Let’s Biden. He woke up this morning and says, okay, I’m out. He’s not the nominee. Um, he would have to give the money back, um, um, unless, ah, the campaign committee is the Biden Harris.
[00:23:03] And so, um, Harris, Kamala Harris would inherit. So it makes a difference here that we have a joint committee of a presidential and a vice presidential candidate together. Um, and so that would allow Harris to continue, but if the party doesn’t nominate her, then that’s a problem. Um, the other thing to consider is that You know, let’s say in a couple of weeks, and keep in mind, the Democrats are, look like they’re moving forward on their plan to do a virtual roll call in the next week or two, so Biden may be the formal nominee sooner than the convention.
[00:23:48] Once he’s nominated, then those funds, it’s no longer a nomination fund, it’s a general election fund, and the general, again, if it’s Kamala Harris, Who ends up replacing him, then that’s one thing, but if it’s not, then there are limits on what, um, that committee can do with those funds. He could only give 2, 000 to the, to the, to the other, um, um, um, candidate, you know, to who to judge or whoever becomes the nominee.
[00:24:26] Um, the rest of the money would have to go to, like, a super PAC. He could create a leadership pack, um, that could pour money into the election in, um, uncoordinated in theory. Um, but um, but not know kind of directly part of the campaign and the new nominee would need to start RA fundraising, um, on their own.
[00:24:54] Um, we hear reports that there’s a bunch of wealthy donors sitting on $90 million. Um, and maybe they would disgorge that 90 million for, uh, Mayor Pete or whoever. Um, but, um, it would be kind of starting from a cold start, um, for anybody else, especially if it’s not Kamala Harris.
[00:25:14] Joe Selvaggi: Yeah, it seems like the party would have to be rather desperate.
[00:25:17] So, to be clear, I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. If, uh, Biden steps aside and the convention, uh, chooses someone, if it’s Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, she would be entitled to the money that’s been raised. That’s my, I mean, that’s my understanding and listening to the election lawyers. But if it’s anyone else, uh, whereas they could, they as candidates or former candidates, um, you know, can’t use it. You know, because they’re not candidates. They could create their own super PAC. Why wouldn’t the money that was given, and again, we know from campaign finance laws that, you know, every one of those donations is documented somewhere.
[00:25:55] Why don’t they have to give it back? In a sense, why is it now the prerogative of the candidate who’s no longer the candidate to choose where that money goes? Wouldn’t it have to be given back to the donor?
[00:26:03] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, no, that’s a good question. I don’t know why, but from everything I’ve read from the election lawyers, that they make this distinction, um, about, um, you know, before and after, um, nomination, and, um, that it belongs, I mean, it now belongs to the, um, to the committee.
[00:26:18] Committee could give it back, um, for sure, um, And, um, but my suspicion would be that, um, it would be rolled into some sort of political operation in support of the nominee, the new
[00:26:33] Joe Selvaggi: nominee. So our conversation is talking about the nomination getting up to the, uh, the election. Um, I want to, I don’t want to bring up a sore subject, but of course now November 5th, as you say, is coming no matter what.
[00:26:43] Zombies? Asteroids? It’s coming. Get ready. So someone’s going to get elected. But we had, again, I don’t want to bring up a sore topic, but in 2020, a lot of, um, disagreement about the prerogatives then when we’re in, again, now this is governed by statutory law. This is no longer the prerogatives of, of parties.
[00:26:59] This is the real thing. It’s a real election. Individual states, as, as we know, um, it’s not people that elect presidents, it’s states that elect presidents. Each of those states send electors, uh, that have been determined by that state’s constitutional obligation to send those electors. What, you know, we had a lot of disagreement.
[00:27:16] Maybe it wasn’t legitimate disagreement. Some disagreement in 2020, how those electors must then ultimately go in and be counted for the election. Is there any disagreement, again, with the wisdom of reflection? For years, any ambiguity or any changes in the law that have sort of shored up our, our system such that we’re not going to have any more debate as to, you know, prerogatives of actual electors, not, not delegates, these are electors.
[00:27:42] Charles Stewart III: Right, right, right, exactly. Well, um, um, debate? No, there’s always going to be debate. Um, actual actions? Um, um, yes, we’re in a better, um, we’re in a better situation now than we were four years ago, and that’s because a couple of years ago, um, in a fit of bipartisanship, um, Congress passed and President Biden signed, um, the Electoral Count Reform Act, Um, which also had a Transition Act component to it as well, which also dealt with, you know, the kerfuffle over whether Biden could start his transition, um, before the inauguration.
[00:28:21] The Electoral Count Act addresses, um, many of the issues that arose in 2020. It starts by specifying That the vice president’s role is purely ministerial. Um, no decisions about who gets, who gets to count or anything like that. He’s purely presiding over a counting of votes. Um, there are, it’s harder to make a congressional, um, challenge to votes.
[00:28:55] Um, it can only be given for clause and instead of 1 member from each chamber objecting, you need 1 5th of each chamber to object to the counting of any votes. Um, states cannot change their method of election after election day. That’s been, that’s been settled because you recall 4 years ago, there were some Attempts to get the state legislatures to elect, um, um, electors and that’s been foreclosed.
[00:29:27] Um, there are stricter, um, um, deadlines for certifying elections and, um, and there is now a provision if a candidate is unhappy with certification, or if there’s any, um, any legal challenge to certification, um, um, you can impanel in that state a special, I believe it’s a 3 judge court to, um, rule on those challenges.
[00:29:59] So, um, so there’s a belief among the legal community that, that this kind of covers most of the, you know, the problems that arose and at least solves those problems. Well, no, there could be new problems in the future we haven’t anticipated. There’s also an argument that has been made that you can’t bind a future Congress.
[00:30:20] And so that’s why I say it’s not going to cut off debate. Right. Um, there’s still going to be people claiming if they’re unhappy. Well, we can go into, um, January 6th and we, or whatever the date will be, and we can, um, you know, we can, overturn this election. But the, the, the black letter of the law is pretty clear, um, to try to foreclose a lot of
[00:30:45] Joe Selvaggi: There may be all new, different Krakens to set loose, uh, this, this time.
[00:30:51] Charles Stewart III: There’s always a new Kraken.
[00:30:53] Joe Selvaggi: So, uh, we’re getting close to the end of our time together. I just want to ask sort of a meta question. I think sort of the sentiment bouncing around, particularly among Democratic circles, is sort of, look, Biden, you know, you know, is not the best candidate. We make the rules, we can break the rules.
[00:31:08] I want to get meta on you. It’s like if, if, if People believe that rules are just something we’ve created and therefore infinitely malleable. What is it about elections or just rules that, you know, sort of constrain our ability to change them on the fly? Isn’t there something within us, maybe as Americans or maybe as human beings, where whatever the rules may be, you got to stick by them through the, through the entire process?
[00:31:32] Match. You can’t change the game, rules of the game, mid stride. Is that real or is that just my perception as sort of a conservative guy who doesn’t like, uh, you know, messing with the controls, you know, while you’re still flying?
[00:31:47] Charles Stewart III: Yeah, yeah, you know, look, and something I teach, teach my students, um, that, um, you know, the rule of law is a very strong principle in this country.
[00:31:56] And certainly it’s been kind of bandied about over the last, you know, several years. But, um, speaking about conservatives, go back to the founding, go back to Locke, go back to Montesquieu, go back to all those people, right? What, you know, it justifies, you know, the rule of law is really an important thing, and it’s really drilled into Americans.
[00:32:19] We’re not quite Germans in that sense, right? Um, we’re kind of, we do see some flexibility, maybe other places won’t, But fairness in the United States, um, is, is oftentimes judged in terms of following the rules and then, you know, to use sports metaphors, you know, winning or losing based on everybody playing on the same playing field and knowing the rules ahead of the game.
[00:32:47] That’s kind of the American way of doing it. If we were. Um, British, you know, we might be a little more sophisticated or whatever, cosmopolitan about, um, the use of rules and might understand a bit more that, you know, um, that politics is about power and that it’s sometimes okay to bend the rules to get power, but that’s really kind of, that’s not the American way.
[00:33:14] Yeah,
[00:33:15] Joe Selvaggi: so you made reference to your students. I want to, before we close, I want to give an opportunity to plug your work at MIT with the Election Science and Data Center. Um, what kind of work do you do? And can our listeners, uh, look it up and learn something? Or is there some sort of repository of research and information about elections in general?
[00:33:33] that they could access, uh, let’s say, online.
[00:33:36] Charles Stewart III: Oh, absolutely. Um, go to our website. Um, we, like everyone else, have a website, um, electionlab, one word, electionlab. mit. edu. And, um, we do research, um, ranging from the geeky to the publicly accessible. We write explainers. Um, we write commentary about a number of things.
[00:33:57] We will be following the 2024 election very closely and be writing, um, kind of more kind of geeky, number crunchy analyses about what’s going on. We’ll be following on the election skeptics. Um, and I’m trying to kind of debunk the kind of the weirder and crazier takes on the American election. So in any case, electionlab.mit.edu.
[00:34:22] Joe Selvaggi: That’s wonderful. Well, good. I promise I will be checking on that often in this crazy time of election. So I really appreciate your time, Professor Stewart. You know, I hope our listeners have learned something. And I hope, uh, you know, we have a, uh, a safe fair and, um, you know. Uh, uncontested, God bless, uh, election, uh, ahead of us in 2024.
[00:34:43] Thank you for your time, Professor Stewart. Sure enough. Likewise,
[00:34:45] Charles Stewart III: and this was fun. It’s a lot of fun.
[00:34:48] Joe Selvaggi: This has been another episode of Hubwonk. If you enjoyed today’s show, there are several ways to support Hubwonk and Pioneer Institute. It would be easier for you and better for us if you subscribe to Hubwonk on your iTunes podcatcher.
[00:35:00] It would make it easier for others to find us if you offer a five star rating or a favorable review. We’re of course grateful if you share Hubwonk with friends. If you have ideas or comments or suggestions for me about future episode topics, you’re welcome to email me at hubwonk@pioneerinstitute.org.
Please join me next week for a new episode of Hubwonk.
Joe Selvaggi talks with MIT Professor Charles Stewart III about the political party’s presidential candidate nomination process and what or who ultimately decides who is chosen.
Guest:
Charles Stewart III is the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT, where he has taught since 1985, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His research and teaching areas include American politics congressional politics, elections, and American political development. His research about Congress touches on the historical development of committees, origins of partisan polarization, and Senate elections. His books of congressional research include Budget Reform Politics, Electing the Senate (with Wendy J. Schiller), Fighting for the Speakership (with Jeffery A. Jenkins), and Analyzing Congress. Professor Stewart is an established leader in the analysis of the performance of election systems and the quantitative assessment of election performance. Since 2001, Professor Stewart has been a member of the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, a leading research effort that applies scientific analysis to questions about election technology, election administration, and election reform. He is currently the MIT director of the project. Working with the Pew Charitable Trusts, he helped with the development of Pew’s Elections Performance Index. Professor Stewart also provided advice to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. His research on measuring the performance of elections and polling place operations has been funded by Pew, the Democracy Fund, and the Hewlett Foundation. As part of this research, he was the co-editor (with Barry C. Burden) of The Measure of American Elections. In 2017, with the support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Democracy Fund, and the Joyce Foundation, Professor Stewart established the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, which applies scientific principles to how elections are studied and administered. In 2020, he partnered with Professor Nate Persily of the Stanford Law School to establish the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project.