1. Adams-Wiley1
Ana M. Adams-Wiley
Dr. Glen Smith
Literature Review/3303
4/7/2016
The Pros and Cons to Primaries
How have multiple candidates in primaries affected election outcomes? The answer has a
several different answers. Scholars and researchers have examined several places around the
world about systems that allow proportional electorate systems with multiple candidates to
compete in a primary. This paper will discuss the four places that several scholars studied and
reported their findings on the effects of multiple candidates in primaries. Netherlands, China, and
Latin America have similar results compared with the state of California in the United States.
However, these places have some differences. Their research will discuss the many ways
democracy has developed within these countries and explain the choices that have been made in
how the voters have elected their representatives.
Research from other scholars will show that it is not just the amount of candidates
competing in a primary that can only affect election outcomes. It can be other factors that occur
in our everyday life. If multiple candidates competing for the same position in a primary is
affecting election outcomes negatively then should there be limits to how many candidates are
allowed to compete or should it continue if the effects on the election outcome is positive. This
literature review will compare and contrast between the countries’ multiple candidate system and
investigate whether or not this system is hindering election outcomes.

2. Adams-Wiley2
Positive and Negative Factors of Multiple Candidates
Multiple candidates in a primary can affect an election outcome positively or negatively.
The Netherlands and China share electorate problems but also share differences. In the
Netherlands, they had a multi-party system that had created problems with their results for
candidates due to the people voting based on their religion and class (Quinn, Martin, and
Whitford 1999). The law makers are elected by a national-list proportional representation
(Quinn, Martin, and Whitford 1999). Though the Netherlands in the beginning had competitive
elections, they later turned to being less competitive about their party positions and resulting in
better policy creation for the country. In the villages of China, they had less competition in the
beginning of their democracy. Since 1998, China has become more competitive in their primary
elections by allowing multiple candidates to enter the primary elections (Hin 2011). The results
in China’s electorate system had good and bad indications (Hin 2011). Latin America and the
United States demonstrated similar competitiveness in primaries. The authors in two different
articles agree that too much competition in primary presidential elections have consequences to
having too many candidates running for an office position (Carey and Polga-Hecimovich; 2006).
They feel that this could cause future candidates that are better qualified to not participate and
this could hinder better candidate selection for the voter (Carey and Polga-Hecimovich; 2006). In
the United States they claim that primary elections have hazardous conditions resulting from
political parties having more influence over the voters during the primary process (Carey and
Polga-Hecimovich; 2006). In Latin America, they distrust political parties and see primaries as
means to increase voter participation and then becomes an empirical focus (Carey and Polga-
Hecimovich; 2006). In the United States, the state of California has several different options such
as blanket, open, semi-closed, and non-partisan primary systems (Gerber and Morton 1998).

3. Adams-Wiley3
These systems have been proven to create moderate candidates (Gerber and Morton 1998).
However, this also suppresses the voters’ options for candidates if they have a preference. This
could result in that the voter will not have the representative of their choice to represent their
views (Gerber and Morton 1998).
Do Multiple Candidates have a Purpose in Primary Elections?
It appears that multiple candidates can have its purpose in these countries. It also seems
that depending on what type of culture in their society would depend on which system is better
suited for their electorate system. Hin’s research showed that the villagers in China made poor
choices in electing those to represent their town. Hin’s argument is since China’s society is based
on kinship, the people in the poorer villages will vote based on lineage and therefore elect
incapable leaders (Hin 2011). The multiple candidates running for a political position in China is
not the problem as much as it’s the society being polarized to electing those who can benefit
from a candidate that is closer to their family history (Hin 2011). Hin’s results are that the
villages’ committee is having problems producing a full committee due to having multiple
candidates competing in elections (Hin 2011). Therefore, multiple candidates competing can
have a purpose on if kinship was not a factor in their elections. Quinn, Martin, and Whitford’s
study on the Netherlands’s society showed that their society was polarized by a social ladder and
the people would vote for a candidate based on what policy proposals would fit their personal
views (Quinn, Martin, and Whitford 1999). The multiple candidate system did not suit them after
the mid-1970s; they became less concerned about their social ladder and began to focus on issues
that matter to the country (Quinn, Martin, and Whitford 1999). The Netherlands began to be less
competitive and the people stopped voting based on their place in society, along with not
aligning with their party identifications based on their party issues (Quinn, Martin, and Whitford

4. Adams-Wiley4
1999). They concluded that it was not so much a party identification that elects their
representatives but which representative can represent and solve the issue that concerns the
voters (Quinn, Martin, Whitford 1999). Carey and Polga-Hecimovich article proved that
primaries in the United States produced weak candidates for executive office of limited value
theoretically and empirically (Carey and Polga-Hecimovich 2006). However in Latin America,
results showed that the primary system helped their election outcomes by increasing participation
from voters that despise political parties (Carey and Polga-Hecimovich 2006). Theoretically the
United States’ party system supports a spatial pattern of primary competitions and empirically
the primary system is hard to test whether or not multiple candidates competing for that one
position is interfering with electorate process (Carey and Polga-Hecimovich 2006). Gerber and
Morton study on California’s several primary systems showed how the results in voting behavior
can result in voters’ preferences in candidates (Gerber and Morton 1998). The Open Primary Act
of 1996 was passed in California to give an open variety of selection in candidates to choose
from in a primary election and to end the restrictive closed primary policy (Gerber and Morton
1998). The primary system in California could help candidates of either party affiliation win an
election as long as they are moderate (Gerber and Morton 1998). They also discovered that the
primary election laws had a higher effect of the candidates elected and the choice they made
once in office (Gerber and Morton 1998).
Effectiveness of Multiple Candidates
To re-ask the original question, how have multiple candidates in primaries affected
election outcomes? After reviewing four sources, it appears it depends on the cultures and the
societies. However, there is another answer, in a study done by Forsythe, Myerson, Rietz, and
Weber on three or more candidates in a plurality voting during an election (Forsythe, Myerson,

5. Adams-Wiley5
Rietz, and Weber 1993). They tested Duverger’s Law, which means during plurality voting; only
two candidates will be important to the election outcome in a multiple candidate competition
(Forsythe, Myerson, Rietz, and Weber 1993). This idea is that voters will pick two frontrunners
and ignore all other candidates (Forsythe, Myerson, Rietz, and Weber 1993). Their results were
voters that pay attention to polls or election histories was the reason for voters choosing the two
frontrunners and Duverger’s Law was void (Forsythe, Myerson, Rietz, and Weber 1993).
Although, voters that did not pay attention to polls or election histories, the law would apply to
how the voters chose the frontrunners (Forsythe, Myerson, Rietz, and Weber 1993). Based on
this theory, it would seem that the effectiveness on multiple candidates in a primary could have
an impact on election outcomes.
Conclusion
Multiple candidates competing for the same position can have multiple effects on primary
election outcomes. After reviewing five resources, each one a different case while each case
showed that they were in some way whether it was positive or negative were affected by multiple
candidates competing in an election process. Latin America seems to be similar with the United
States. They both rely on primaries to elect who they want to win as their leader and they use the
primary system to increase support from their voters. They differ by how they use their political
parties. The United States’ political parties have more influence than the voters in who is
nominated as the primary electorate and Latin America uses the peoples’ distrust in political
parties to fuel them to participate in the primaries to ensure election outcomes. China’s multiple
candidate system in primaries has begun to hinder their results in better qualified leaders due to
the poorer villagers voting on lineage rather than who is more qualified. The Netherlands learned
that unlike China, voting based on social needs just hinders the democratic process. Overall,

6. Adams-Wiley6
multiple candidates in primaries can hinder election outcomes but it depends on how the process
is conducted. California’s semi-closed, blanket, non-partisan, and open primaries is an example
of whether or not multiple candidates in primaries are good for the primary process. California’s
primary system is only good for electing moderate candidates but if a voter has a preference then
the voters’ preference in a candidate stands a chance of not being elected and the voters’ views
will not be represented. It can be concluded that multiple candidates in a primary can hinder the
election outcomes. However, kinship, society, culture, polls, election histories, and primary
election laws are other factors that play a role in the election process.

7. Adams-Wiley7
References
Carey,J. M., & Polga‐Hecimovich,J. (2006).Primaryelectionsandcandidate strengthinLatinAmerica.
Journalof Politics, 68(3), 530-543.
Forsythe,R.,Myerson,R.B., Rietz,T.A., & Weber,R.J. (1993). Anexperimentoncoordinationinmulti-
candidate elections:The importance of pollsandelectionhistories. SocialChoiceand Welfare,
10(3), 223-247.
Gerber,E. R., & Morton, R. B. (1998). Primaryelectionsystemsandrepresentation. Journalof Law,
Economics,& Organization,304-324.
Lin,H. (2011). A MixedBag of Results:VillageElectionsinContemporaryChina. Asian Cultureand
History,3(1), 14.
Quinn,K.M., Martin, A.D., & Whitford,A.B. (1999). Voterchoice inmulti-partydemocracies:atestof
competingtheoriesandmodels. American Journalof PoliticalScience, 1231-1247.