Until the 1960s, it was largely the senior politicos in Washington and the state capitols who acted as kingmakers; only when they were deadlocked did the battle reach the convention floor, but they were still leading their own armies.

I had occasion, three weeks ago, to ask a very distinguished group of American social scientists, including some of the biggest names in political science over the last forty years, whether any one of them could imagine the Republic party leadership choosing George W. Bush to head the party ticket. There were no takers. Zero. Unimaginable.
The political turmoil of the American 1960s, especially George McGovern’s loss at the polls, produced a belief on the Left that what was needed was “more democracy,” which translated into such experiments with participatory democracy as town meetings and, especially, the call for more primary elections. There had been, through the mid-century, primaries in a few states dotted here and there on the political map. These contributed a small minority of delegates to the party conventions, conventions that, in those days, actually chose the presidential nominees, instead of just crowning them. All the others came from state conventions and party caucuses, from, according to the key pejorative of the time, the “smoke-filled rooms.” It did not seem, to the zealots of “more democracy,” that a smoking ban would do the trick. So, ignoring the fact that these sinister dens had produced the two most successful Democratic politicians of the mid-century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman, they launched an aggressive campaign to install primary elections everywhere. It was a brilliant success.
At that point the one iron-clad, unfailing law of democratic politics started taking effect: the law of unintended consequences. Elections in a big population are very expensive. Lengthening the campaign period (so that it really starts a year or two before the conventions) multiplies the expense. More and more American politics fell into the hands of Big Money. All candidates now say they spend more time raising money than soliciting votes. Because incumbents can produce the favors Big Money needs, the number of “safe seats” in the Congress, seats that never change hands, became more prevalent than at any time in our history. When the same partisans of primaries developed second thoughts, they were now labeled “undemocratic.” They were finding that the test of the quality of a democracy might not be number of elections held, not the frequency with which people go to the polls.
Italy has two advantages over the U.S. in this area: its electoral campaigns are much shorter and RAI provides important no-cost radio and television campaign opportunities. The advent of primaries would erode both those advantages. The choosing of candidates by the electorate extends, however informally, the true campaign period enormously. Romano Prodi’s campaign bus was a 1990s harbinger of exactly this. And when it becomes a question of multiple candidates, candidates who can come from anywhere, as yet unchosen by significant parties, RAI’s role becomes more difficult, and the use of (costly) private means becomes a larger part of the process.
However, a country that never experiences any difficulty on the subject of the financing of parties and politicians need not worry about all this. Oh, oh.
Back to purely Italian matters, the building of our structure of understanding, next week.