In the aftermath of the Republican Party’s devastating 2012 election day losses, which saw them squander an opportunity to take back the White House from the unpopular Barack Obama, lose House seats, and sink deeper into the Senate minority, the Republican National Committee commissioned a group of party operatives to determine what had gone wrong. The RNC called the project the “most comprehensive post-election review” ever, and they vowed to fix the problems that doomed them in 2012. The strategists authored a 100-page “autopsy” which identified two main issues that had led to Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney’s demise at ballot boxes all across the country. First of all, the report claimed, the GOP had done a woefully poor job of connecting with minority voters. It listed several ideas for Republican candidates to help them appeal to minorities, including championing immigration reform.

The other issue that killed Mitt Romney in 2012, according to the RNC report, was the dragged-out, circus-like Republican primary that year in which one firebrand conservative candidate after another rose to the top of the polls before crashing and burning. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich- each one had their moment at the top, tearing into Romney for a few days or weeks before the stage collapsed beneath them. The Democrats, with an incumbent president and no serious primary race, came off as much more legitimate. And while Romney limped out of his primary scarred and damaged by his Republican opponents, Obama had no such intraparty opposition.

The RNC, determined to make the Republican Party appear more serious to voters in 2016, promised to create new rules to shorten the party’s nominating process and minimize the candidates’ opportunities to attack and defame each other. The hope was that this would help the eventual 2016 nominee to enter the general election viewed positively by conservatives and moderates alike. Shortly after the 2014 midterm elections, GOP officials made good on their pledge to change the way the Republican primary system works. In early January of this year, the RNC released a truncated debate schedule featuring only nine primary debates, as opposed to the 20 that took place during the 2012 cycle. In addition, in 2016 the primary season itself will be cut in half, with all 50 states voting between February and April. The 2012 primary season began on January 3 with the Iowa caucuses and continued all the way into June. The abridged nominating process will be followed by the Republican National Convention beginning on July 18,  more than a month earlier than 2012’s August 27-30 convention. This move allows the Republican presidential nominee to begin spending general election funds earlier in the cycle.

Of course, many conservatives were angered by the RNC’s moves to reduce opportunities for upstart candidates, arguing that the more moderate GOP establishment is trying to “anoint” a centrist candidate by limiting the ability of conservative underdogs to dethrone the establishment favorite, whose campaign will almost definitely be better funded and better organized than all the others. These concerns are certainly legitimate; every Republican hopeful deserves a chance to let voters know what he or she stands for. However, Republican strategists agree that with a more serious primary system, the Republicans are more likely to produce a strong nominee who can win back the White House in 2016. This means that if the new guidelines can in fact make the Republican nominee seem more serious in the eyes of voters, they are necessary. The question is, will the changes to the Republican primary process really make it less of a circus? Can the RNC’s efforts actually stop the flood of long shot Republican would-be nominees from turning the primary into another bash-the-frontrunner-fest?

There is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the GOP strategy. To be fair, there is little more that the RNC can do- without compromising the integrity of the nomination process- to help the eventual nominee reach the general election on the strongest footing possible. However, limiting the number of debates is not likely to help much. Although there may be slightly less public bickering between the candidates with fewer debates, the Republican contenders will have plenty of other platforms to rip into each other and lob barbs at one another. Another idea recently floated by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, to create a minimum polling threshold (to start somewhere around 1%) for candidates to merit inclusion in the primary debates, is also unlikely to be truly impactful. Although some of the circus clowns like Carly Fiorina, Bob Ehrlich, and Donald Trump are likely to get locked out of the debates with a minimum threshold in place, these are not the candidates who would be generating the headlines anyway. It will be the top-tier candidates, the ones who will easily qualify for the debates, who will be the subject of newspaper headlines the next day. And if you need any evidence that serious candidates also make fun of and try to undermine each other, just check out Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s Twitter account. So the Republican nominee will most likely stumble out of the gate in 2016, much like in 2012.

Granted, the abbreviated battle for the GOP nod for President may be beneficial to whoever is ultimately nominated. However, while the shortened primary season means that Republicans will not be slinging mud at each other past April, it also means that the Democrats’ political machine, expected to be fueled by around $2 billion if Hillary Clinton is their standard-bearer (which seems to be increasingly inevitable), will be able to identify their opponent early and begin pouncing on the Republican candidate for president a full six months before voters hit the voting booth. Is Republican bashing of a candidate much worse than Democratic bashing? Obviously the Republicans would prefer to avoid- or at least curb- the bad optics of party infighting, but is it so much worse than giving the Democrats an early target for their negative ads and opposition research? Probably not.

The RNC absolutely deserves credit for taking these actions, however minute their effects may be. Every close election comes down to a lot of small things, and it is entirely possible that the RNC’s moves ahead of 2016 will help tip the scales in the Republicans’ favor. That said, there is more that can be done- not by Priebus or the Republican National Committee, but by Republican primary voters. The most basic thing Republican voters should do is not embrace the long shot candidates, as this gives unqualified people a platform to demonstrate Republican incompetence by making controversial statements and not understanding the issues. When such people do well in the polls or in primary elections, it reflects poorly on the Republican Party. We do not need another Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann rising to the top of the polls and attracting negative media attention.

There are of course real differences between different “groups” within the GOP, but there are also serious candidates representing each branch of the party. If one is a Tea Party conservative, he or she can vote for Rand Paul or Texas Governor Rick Perry instead of promoting a fringe candidate like Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina. For traditional Republicans, there are legitimate candidates like Governors Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. You don’t have to vote for a dark horse like Peter King or Bob Ehrlich to show that you are more centrist than some of the far-right candidates. As for those towards the middle of the party, not quite Tea Partiers but still more conservative than much of the establishment, there is a very serious crop of candidates, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (who was recently in Lakewood) and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. By promoting and voting for serious candidates in the primary, Republicans can bolster their party’s competence in the eyes of November 2016 swing voters without sacrificing their principles.

The GOP presidential candidates in 2016 have a certain level of responsibility too. Instead of the juvenile personal attacks and negative ads that we have seen in past cycles, think of how refreshing it would be if the Republican presidential primary next year would be about arguing the issues instead of about tarnishing the characters of other candidates. Obviously, there will- and should- be a very spirited debate about whose policies best represent the Republican Party. But does it really matter which candidate laid off the most employees or underwent the messiest divorce? Can Republicans expect to win the nation’s highest office as long as their candidates are bickering and maligning each other like little children? It is the duty of all those vying to be the Republican standard-bearer in 2016 to keep their arguments relevant and policy-oriented while preserving the dignity of their opponents. After all, one of them is going to face the nation’s full electorate in November, and the GOP needs him or her to be taken seriously as a candidate.

At this point we can’t know for certain whether the new rules governing the Republican nominating process will be helpful or not. One thing that we do know, however, is that no matter how effective or ineffective the changes are, it will ultimately be up to the candidates and voters to prevent 2016 from turning into another GOP circus. Asked recently if he is concerned that the Republican field will once again be an embarrassing mess in 2016, Jeb Bush responded, “I think there will be some discipline.” Hopefully Bush is correct. And hopefully he and the other potential GOP contenders recognize that they must change the way the primary game is played next year if they want to put a Republican back in the Oval Office.

TLS welcomes your articles by submitting them to [email protected]