February 13, 2007
Primary Envy II Posted by Alexander Burns at 12:50 PM EST I share some of Julie Fenster’s frustration with the presidential nominating process. As a New Yorker, I am unlikely to have much say in selecting either of the major-party nominees in 2008. I am not hugely concerned about this, since I think Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have recently tended to choose the best candidate, at least where my party is concerned (Kerry over Dean, Gore over Bradley). And when these early states have not clearly fallen behind a consensus candidate, other states have been able to weigh in on the process. In 1992, for example, the New York primary ended up being a somewhat significant contest between Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. Looking further back, in 1984 Gary Hart ended up viewing California’s comparatively late primary as a potential last stand. I also think there’s an argument for concentrating disproportionate nominating power in smaller, more rural states, since larger states like New York, California, Illinois, and Texas can ensure that their interests are represented through the huge amount of campaign money that comes out of zip codes like 10023 and 90210. This may not give much personal influence to people like me and, perhaps, Ms Fenster. But it does mean that the interests of, say, Hollywood, are unlikely to be overlooked as easily as those of the farming industry would be, were Iowa cut out of the nominating process. At the end of the day, however, I have to agree that the presidential nominating process needs reform, if only because it has become so concentrated at the front end of election years. We’re headed toward a setup in 2008 whereby early primaries will come in such quick succession that any serious candidate will need a major win in January or early February in order to stay viable. Some states, like Illinois and New York, may attempt to take advantage of this arrangement by moving up their primaries in order to boost home-state candidates. There is some reason for optimism, though. Recently, as reported by Political Wire and Stateline.org, a division of the Pew Research Center, the National Association of Secretaries of State “has dusted off its proposal to divide states into regions—the East, South, Midwest, and West—and hold four primaries, each a month apart, between March and June. All states in a region would schedule their primaries on the same day. The order of the contests would rotate every presidential election year.” This suggestion bears some resemblance to Mr. Gordon’s idea for holding six or eight regional primaries, with one coming every two weeks. At a glance, I think the Gordon plan is probably superior. To divide the United States into only four big regions lumps a lot of unlike states together. Why should West Virginia hold its primary on the same day as Maine, as the NASS proposal would have it? And why should residents of Detroit, Michigan, and Fredonia, Kansas, end up voting as a bloc? With more regional subdivisions, you’d probably end up with a more coherent and effectively reformed process. Regardless of specifics, though, the idea of regional primaries is a good one, and one I hope to see gaining greater support in the near future. I’m not sure I want to have to answer phone calls from all 10 or so Democratic presidential candidates—but I know I don’t like the idea of all those calls going to Nashua and Charleston.
|
