I understand the overall concept of political endorsements—one states their opinion on who would make the best candidate for a particular office. This makes perfect sense.
During the 2016 Presidential primaries, however, I noticed something odd: all the discussions of the endorsement primary assumed that each endorser would endorse one, and only one, candidate. This seemed a bit weird because there were really three races going on (for the nomination of each major party1). Once the nominations are in, it makes sense to endorse one of them, but until then it make ssense to endorse a candidate for each nomination.
Look at it this way: I would rather have the best possible candidate from each party in the final race.2 Elections would be a lot less stressful if I liked all the candidates, and had to choose the best rather than the least-terrible. Party officials should like this, because tempting swing voters and moderate members of the other Parties would improve their odds of winning.
Endorsing a candidate for each nomination is a potential way of communicating this information. It's gameable, certainly, but also improves the odds of the final office-holder representing the wider values of their constituents. Letting the opposition parties know which of their candidates you prefer seems like a net-beneficial disclosure.
Maybe this is my idiosyncrasy as an independent showing, though. I'm no longer a committed partisan and vote for candidates that can be expected to reliably represent my values in office, regardless of the letters after their names. Party officials aren't generally receptive to their elected members deciding for themselves—they'd rather everyone vote with the Party line than entertain the possibility of internal dissent. This is the biggest issue with the idea, I suspect. No one in the major parties would like to give up a seat to a candidate outside their organization, even a sympathetic one.
Remind me why we tolerate whips, again?
Endorsing a candidate for each nomination is a potential way of communicating this information. It's gameable, certainly, but also improves the odds of the final office-holder representing the wider values of their constituents. Letting the opposition parties know which of their candidates you prefer seems like a net-beneficial disclosure.
Maybe this is my idiosyncrasy as an independent showing, though. I'm no longer a committed partisan and vote for candidates that can be expected to reliably represent my values in office, regardless of the letters after their names. Party officials aren't generally receptive to their elected members deciding for themselves—they'd rather everyone vote with the Party line than entertain the possibility of internal dissent. This is the biggest issue with the idea, I suspect. No one in the major parties would like to give up a seat to a candidate outside their organization, even a sympathetic one.
Remind me why we tolerate whips, again?
1The Green Party's primaries weren't even remotely competitive, in contrast to the other major parties.
2Where "best" indicates alignment with my values, rather than probability of winning.
