Some political scientists worried about the new system. Binding primaries were certainly more democratic. But might they be too democratic? By placing presidential nominations in the hands of voters, binding primaries weakened parties' gatekeeping function, potentially eliminating the peer review process and opening the door to outsiders. Just before the McGovern–Fraser Commission began its work, two prominent political scientists warned that primaries could lead to the appearance of extremist candidates and demagogues who, unrestrained by party allegiances, have little to lose by stirring up mass hatreds or making absurd promises.
Some political scientists expressed concerns about the implications of binding primaries on the political system. While these primaries enhanced democratic participation by involving voters directly in presidential nominations, they also posed risks by diminishing the gatekeeping role of political parties. This shift could potentially undermine the checks and balances traditionally provided by party leadership, allowing less qualified or extremist candidates to emerge in the political arena.
This concern was articulated prior to the work of the McGovern–Fraser Commission, with experts warning that the new system might invite demagogues who could exploit voter emotions without the constraints of party loyalty. Such candidates, free from traditional party oversight, might engage in polarizing rhetoric or make unrealistic promises to gain support, thereby threatening the integrity of the electoral process.
