« No Candidate is Even Remotely Adequate on Space Policy | Main | Senator Larry Craig - WTF? »
Florida and the Idiocy of Primary Leapfrog
By Bill | August 28, 2007 | Email This Post
Florida, the only state with a history of questionable behavior such that it gets its own Fark tag, has moved its primary up to January 29th, in an attempt to have more of a voice in the campaign. This comes close to infringing on the sacred electoral turf held by states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Democrats, for one, won’t stand for it. The Democratic National Committee, which has rules about such things, has stripped Florida of its delegates, making the whole Florida contest effectively meaningless unless changes are made. (Note to Democrats: Good strategy, alienate voters in one of the key swing states… you’ll want to depress turnout come the general election.) Florida Democrats, for their part, are understandably upset, and even threatening to sue their own party for disenfranchisement.
Florida has, probably unwittingly, cast the national spotlight on an issue with rather far-reaching consequences. The whole genesis for the shift in the Florida primary date is that no Florida Democratic primary has really meant anything in years. Races were already well in hand by the time Florida rolled around - effectively, even if not mathematically - meaning that as a Floridian, you were just being dragged through the motions. It’s no wonder that one of the more significant states in terms of electoral clout wants to flex its muscles just a bit and have candidates pay more attention to issues that concern its citizens.
And that’s the problem. The way the system is now, early state victories are critical. Show well in a few, and your campaign has legitimacy; do not, and your contributions dry up, you’re marginalized by the press, your rallies start to be held at strip malls. The result is that candidates naturally tend to pander to their audience, which in this case is Iowa - or did you think it a coincidence that farm subsidies are suddenly a topic of heated debate every four years, or that Iowa leads the nation in getting them?
What we need is a system that makes the candidate cater to each state… to the country as a whole, certainly, but also still requiring them to educate themselves on issues of localized concern. One thought is a national primary day (or more probably, a series of successive ones to narrow down the field.) Make it sufficiently far back for the candidates to have time to canvass the nation, let the votes fly and see who the electorate wishes to hear more from and who needs to slink ignominiously back to their governor’s mansion. Another possibility with some charm is to continue to allow state-by-state primaries, but to seal the results until all states have participated, providing the same protection but preserving the fun and spectacle that is the Presidential race.
Either option would ensure that each state has a meaningful voice in the outcome of the primaries. Either would be more equitable to both candidates and voters than the method now, dependent as it is on one candidate getting the snowball effect from the early states. And since primaries are largely party-driven affairs, the process is something that could be changed comparatively easily, given the political will. Neither party will be likely to act without the other, however, so consensus is needed - but this is an election year, and all it would take is for one of the candidates to champion the cause.
Then, if we could only go after the pollsters…
Topics: Issues |