The New York Times has a Candidate Appearance Guide that by itself shows the problem with primaries. I shudder to about think what the Founders would say if they could see how this. With all due respect to Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, which are probably wonderful states full of kind and gentle people, this part of the election cycle is rotten.
I wonder what it would be like to experience an election cycle as an Iowan. In North Carolina, we hardly ever had candidates eating in local diners or speaking at town-hall meetings. But I suppose I'm lucky; the attention lavished on South Carolina probably helps the candidates hear about at least some of our regional concerns. If I had grown up anywhere between Wisconsin and Washington State, I probably wouldn't have even had that luxury, as that geographical stretch appears to be a wasteland as far as primary campaigning is concerned.
Could we come up with something more rational? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could come up with some sort of rotation system? Every four years, a different group of states could get some time in the spotlight. That would better represent the spirit of our republic over time.
Unfortunately, that's not a workable solution. As Americans, it seems like we prefer an irrational grassroots system to a bureaucratically designed solution. After all, who could possibly come up with an impartial selection? New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina may be an arbitrary handful of states, but they assumed their importance by jostling ahead of the other states. Now that other states are pushing their primaries further forward, it's starting to get ridiculous, but at least it's a uniquely federal form of silliness which gives the states some individual importance.
It's a weird system, and I can't say that I like it, but I'll go with it for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly, but I do think your statement that Americans prefer an "irrational grassroots system" is a bit naive. Our system persists not because Americans "prefer it", but because no one has bothered to change it to something better. And as to who could come up with an impartial selection, how about a computer? States could be divided into five categories based on population, and one state from each pool would be picked at random. Voila! Something better.
In an age where attention is everything in politics, we should not allow states to have unfair advantage simply because their primary dates are sooner. As you said, that is irrational and undemocratic.
Brad,
I wrote a long response, but the Internet decided, in its infinite wisdom, to prevent it from appearing.
So I'll sum up the points I would have made and tried to support:
1.) Several groups would be suspicious of any change: those who have the advantage now, those who are opponents of whomever advocates the change, those who see that the immediate advantage will go to someplace where they don't want it to be, and the political parties that are used to the current primary system and would have to change their strategies, mailing lists, etc. to accommodate a new system.
2.) We're often annoyed but not particularly offended by the current system, as it takes the candidates to diners and farmhouses to talk to the average, hard-working American.
3.) A sustained campaign would be necessary to overcome the kind of opposition and to convince people that the current system is wrong and not just strange.
4.) Mathematically, your computer plan has a few weaknesses. Five groups means ten states in a group, and since Presidential elections occur every four years, it would take, on average, 40 years to cycle through all the states. But if you make a random list every year, chances are that some states will be selected twice before another state is represented at all. The other option is to randomize a forty-year list all at once, but I think the 5 states whose primaries won't be important for the next 36 years will be a bit upset. I know you were just coming up with something off the top of your head, but I think here we see some of the mathematical difficulties with randomization.
I'll elaborate on this theme when I write about the Electoral College.
Post a Comment