The Republican Party of Iowa has now ensured that 2008 will go down as the longest-ever presidential campaign.The Republican caucus in Iowa will be scheduled on January 3, 2008 which means Iowa Republicans will then get to vote in the General Election exactly 11 months and 1 day later.
Political pundits previewing the Democratic candidate debate on Tuesday said there are now about "35 shopping days left" for the candidates until the the first "Election (we should say nominating) Days are here.
Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally set the stage for the nomination process by hosting the first contests in which the party faithful vote for their preferred candidates to represent the Democratic and Republican parties in the General Election.This tradition is called frontloading as it gives these small states a disproportionate voice in the nomination process.
While just over 400,000 voters took part in the Iowa and NH contests in 2004 (that's less than the number of registered voters in DuPage County) the winners and near winners are vaulted into the national spotlight. The result is that a field of 18 candidates is almost instantly winnowed down to a half-dozen candidates who can garner enough attention, momentum, and money to sustain their campaigns through the contests in larger states.
Larger states such as Florida (Jan. 29), California, New York, and Illinois (Feb. 5) have tried to diminish the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire by scheduling primary elections earlier than ever. But the end result is that candidates have spent even more time and money in Iowa and New Hampshire for fear that failure in these states will carry over to losses in the bigger states.
In our system of federalism, the national government has virtually no control over this process. States and their political parties have final say in the methods used to nominate the top candidates.Until the national parties intervene in the nomination calendar, frontloading by Iowa and New Hampshire will create a year-long election that will always be disproportionately influenced by two of our smaller states.
Can you come up with a better (more fair) nomination calendar, Political Warriors? Create your own nomination schedule and share it here with us.
8 comments:
I'm fine with the system the way it is. I think that it's fair to give the interests of the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire a platform. Without such a system, these states would stand in jeopardy of having no voice. And the small town/rural interests that these states represent deserve a say in the political process. Depriving them of the position of power which they currently hold would allow for the tyranny of the majority that Madison warned about in the federalist papers. Besides, the rules for primaries or for any process that involves the modern party system, aren't addressed in the Constitution. Therefore setting the primary date is a power reserved to the states. They can set their primaries whenever they want. They don't necessarily have to answer to any interests other than their own.
first of all, completely unrelated, here is the link to the part of the democrat debate where kucinich talks about seeing a ufo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM . i think having all of the primaries on the same day would be interesting. with the way the system is, people might not vote for the candidate that they like best if their primary is on a later date because their candidate might already have lost a state or two. then, they might vote for one of the lead candidates in order to pick the one that they dislike the least. we would see more division and more opportunity for a close race. if a candidate is strong in half the states, but all of the states have later primary dates under the current system, he isn't going to win because people are going to think he's done for by the results of the early states. if we had one primary date, however, that candidate will be given a fairer opportunity to have his supporters be made known.
here's another one from that debate w/ hillary clinton laughing about going to war with iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o
How about every state having an April 1st primary.
I agree with Will and Andrew. Everyone gets so bent out of shape over the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, it's no wonder our voter turnout is so low. Let's just have all the primaries on the first Tuesday of March. That still gives the candidates time to campaign for their party's nomination in the summer. This will also, as Andrew pointed out, keep people from voting exclusively on who's leading the polls.
Translation: Fewer "FYAAAAHHHH!" moments.
I don't know, I kind of like the April 1st idea...I bet the cartoonists would have a blast portraying the primaries as the biggest farce of the year...
I also like the April 1st idea. While Jeremy has a point about giving Iowa and New Hampshire a voice which they may not have without the early primary, there are many other small states that do not get this advantage. The playing field should be leveled by keeping all primaries on one day.
I think the system should be left as it is. Its the state's right to decide when a primary will be held. I also think that parties should not penalize states for moving up their dates.
Post a Comment