The whole presidential primary situation is spinning out of control. There are 50 "great" States in these United States, and it seems that most of them want to be the first State to hold the primary or caucus. State legislatures are now openly ignoring both parties' rules establishing the kickoff date as February 5 (the Democrats allow 4 exemptions, the GOP allows none.) Now, numerous States are trying to push their primaries and caucuses into early January.
The order in which primaries happen is very important. Traditionally, it's kicked off with the Iowa Caucus and then the New Hampshire primary. This is changing now. The earlier a State holds its primary, the greater the say it has in who is going to run the country. By contrast, Indiana holds one of the last primaries (sometime in May, if I recall correctly), by which time the primary is really pointless: the candidate already has all the delegates needed to win the nomination.
I like tradition. I like giving Iowa and New Hampshire an early say. It's nice that the little guys can have their moment in the sun. But this madness needs to end. I'm big on the sovereignty of the States and on decentralized government, but this primary horse race is entirely out of hand. And it's become a perversion of what the primary system is supposed to be. Really, the point of the primaries is so that the party organizations in the various states can select delegates to represent that state at the party's national convention, in order that the candidate who best represents the needs of the party in that state will win the nomination. Primaries are really internal party matters, not matters for the public at large.
The reality of the situation dictates otherwise. The Iowa caucus is a closed affair, open only to card-carrying party members. Other States have "open" primaries, in which anyone can vote for a candidate for either party. Indiana merely requires that you declare a party allegiance at the point of voting so they know which ballot to give you, but there's no follow-up or anything. This is a far cry from the days of power brokers with cigars in smoke-filled rooms hashing out deals and doing a lot of closed-door maneuvering so the party can select its desired candidate. In essence, John Q. Public now gets two votes for President.
The system has become completely broken. If the states are going to play so fast and loose with the primary system, I think it's getting close to time for the Federal Electoral Commission to step in and put its foot down: either parties deal with it internally or there will be a national primary day in which ALL primaries and caucuses are held. What we've got now is bloody ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Of course, you're right, except that I have been rooting for the states. (It's truly alarming to wake up, read the paper and find oneself cheering for Jennifer Granholm.) The two political parties are no longer organizations of like-minded people getting together to advance their ideas for the country. Consider this: Let us form the Freedom and Justice for All Party (FAJFAP) with our platform of freedom and justice for all and getting out of Iraq in 178 days on a staggered timetable (NB: The two major parties used to have big debates on platforms. It's no longer any kind of deal at all. The Presidential nominee gets to call the shots at the convention).
Anyway, I go to our FAJFAP convention and nominate my eldest son (the only one of the bunch old enough to be president) and take the steps needed to get FAJFAP on lots of state ballots. THEN on that magic date in May, I also go to the polls to vote in Indiana's Democratic primary for Hillary, figuring that my kid can beat her any day of the week, but that his hair can't compete with Edwards'. So I have a say in two candidates.
The point of this little thought experiment is that our two-party system is based on a fiction. Basically it is a non-constitutional accretion to our national constitution, one which streamlines the access of the two best marketers and fund-raisers to the national election. And if that's the way it is, it seems perfectly reasonable and right for Michigan (e.g.) to insist on a bigger role than NH.
Post a Comment