Primary Problems
I have a proposal that the General Assembly should consider. The Maryland Presidential primary should be moved up to next week. Then, Maryland can take it's rightful place among the first Presidential primaries, and have a key hand in determining our next President.
I say all of that in jest, of course. There is no logical reason as to why Maryland should move up it's Presidential primary. Nor is there a real good reason that California wants to move their primary to February 5th. Florida is talking about January 29th. Illinois and New York want to move their primaries up to at least February 5th in order to help their favorite sons (and daughter) in the nominating process. Alabama is moving to a Saturday primary. And still, none of them will come before the New Hampshire primary, where the Secretary of State will proclaim the Primary at least seven days before any other primary election by state law.
What is all of this coming to? And what's the hurry?
The front-loading of Presidential primary elections is going to do one thing for certain; it is going to ensure that candidates who enter the race with less cash and a lower profile maintain less cash and a lower profile than their competitors. Realistically, only the three or four frontrunners in every party would be able to legitimately participate in the process. Only certain candidates (Romeny, McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Edwards) would be able to compete in 2008 under this kinda of setup.
But that does not mean that the electoral picture would clear itself out by Valentine's Day either. In past years, Iowa and New Hampshire have cleared out the candidates who can't make the cut, allowing only the top two or three candidates to have the momentum to make it to Super Tuesday. If you are talking about simultaneous primaries in many key states with lots of convention delegates, you could see six states split among four or five candidates.
And what if, for example, one of the lower tier candidates wins a major race? What would happen on the Republican side, for example, if Duncan Hunter won the California primary? Combine that with a scenario where no candidate enters the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination, and you have a relatively minor candidate controlling the outcome of the convention. That's not electing a nominee through a primary process; that's vote trading in smoke-filled rooms, just like the bad old days everybody says they want to avoid.
It would be better for everybody if primaries were spread across a great amount of time, not compacted into a a twenty state, ten day sprint. That gives the people more time to learn about the candidates, and allows candidates to compete who do not necessarily have the profile, the money, or the connections to be an instant contender the second they announce. Sure, every so often that sticks you with Jimmy Carter, but it is a better, fairer way to go about the process, and it ensures that people in more states will have a say in the nominee selection process than most of the current frontloaded proposals currently being floated.
I say all of that in jest, of course. There is no logical reason as to why Maryland should move up it's Presidential primary. Nor is there a real good reason that California wants to move their primary to February 5th. Florida is talking about January 29th. Illinois and New York want to move their primaries up to at least February 5th in order to help their favorite sons (and daughter) in the nominating process. Alabama is moving to a Saturday primary. And still, none of them will come before the New Hampshire primary, where the Secretary of State will proclaim the Primary at least seven days before any other primary election by state law.
What is all of this coming to? And what's the hurry?
The front-loading of Presidential primary elections is going to do one thing for certain; it is going to ensure that candidates who enter the race with less cash and a lower profile maintain less cash and a lower profile than their competitors. Realistically, only the three or four frontrunners in every party would be able to legitimately participate in the process. Only certain candidates (Romeny, McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Edwards) would be able to compete in 2008 under this kinda of setup.
But that does not mean that the electoral picture would clear itself out by Valentine's Day either. In past years, Iowa and New Hampshire have cleared out the candidates who can't make the cut, allowing only the top two or three candidates to have the momentum to make it to Super Tuesday. If you are talking about simultaneous primaries in many key states with lots of convention delegates, you could see six states split among four or five candidates.
And what if, for example, one of the lower tier candidates wins a major race? What would happen on the Republican side, for example, if Duncan Hunter won the California primary? Combine that with a scenario where no candidate enters the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination, and you have a relatively minor candidate controlling the outcome of the convention. That's not electing a nominee through a primary process; that's vote trading in smoke-filled rooms, just like the bad old days everybody says they want to avoid.
It would be better for everybody if primaries were spread across a great amount of time, not compacted into a a twenty state, ten day sprint. That gives the people more time to learn about the candidates, and allows candidates to compete who do not necessarily have the profile, the money, or the connections to be an instant contender the second they announce. Sure, every so often that sticks you with Jimmy Carter, but it is a better, fairer way to go about the process, and it ensures that people in more states will have a say in the nominee selection process than most of the current frontloaded proposals currently being floated.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Election
posted by Brian Griffiths at 4:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home