| By Eli Corp - Mar 15th, 2007 at 9:32 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Tags: Election 2008, Election Reform, Electoral College, Iowa Caucus, National Primary, New Hampshire Primary, President
For years Iowa and New Hampshire have been the first to chose the Presidential nominees for both political parties, and candidates have largely ignored the remaining 48 states that they would be representing as President. While there have been recent efforts to introduce more diverse electorates from Nevada and South Carolina into the nominating process, Iowa and New Hampshire still remain the first Caucus and Primary states respectively, and are unrepresentative of the entirety of the nation. Often the nominating process is over in just a few weeks of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary when the candidate wins enough delegates for the nomination.
In recent months several states have proposed moving their primary date to February 5th in what amounts to a Nationwide Primary. The largest states in the nation with the most number of delegates, California, Illinois, New York and Texas are in the process of moving their primary to February 5th, joining over a dozen states with a February 5th Primary. This will effectively lock up the nomination for both Democrats and Republicans on February 5th, the earliest date in American history that a Presidential nominee will be decided.
With so many states now moving their primary's to February 5th, we are making the process even more unequal and unfair to millions of Americans! Something has to be done about it. We cannot allow for our democratic principles to be trampled on by the rush to be the “first” and “most influential” Primary state. We should ALL have a say in who we want as our Presidential nominee, and as our next President. The American people have a right to choose the best candidate possible, and to have their votes counted fairly and accurately.
Unfortunately, late Primary states like Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington will not have an opportunity to choose the nominee under this process. This is wholly and unequivocally unfair to the millions of primary voters across the country who will be left without a voice in choosing the nominees of both political parties.
Even though millions are disenfranchised from the nominating process, many Presidential candidates support the current system because they do not need to campaign or spend money on later primary states. Often an early win in Iowa, or New Hampshire can help candidates lock up other states, so they forego campaigning in many other states.
This is not a partisan issue; every American should be concerned about the loss of our right to have fair elections! This is about upholding the values of freedom and Democracy! With enough voices I know we can change this country, and I know we can make the process more fair for every American! This is not a Democratic or a Republican problem! This is an undemocratic American disgrace, and it must be fixed!
These issues can be addressed with the creation of a National Primary where all states vote on the same day. A National Primary would give no individual state substantial influence in the selection of the nominee. It would make the nominating process more equitable, and increase voter participation across the country. A National Primary would also force Presidential candidates to travel and campaign in more states. Because no individual state would be able to sway voters in other states, candidates would have to meet with voters in a multitude of states, not just a few in order to win the nomination. This would allow for the nomination of the candidate with the greatest appeal to a wide spectrum of voters from across the nation.
Along with creating a National Primary, we should also make the National Primary Day and the General Election Day a National Holiday, giving all non-essential employees a day off to cast their ballots. We should also implement other reforms in Campaign Financing and Political Action Committee campaign contributions.
It’s easy to be apathetic about the political process. I can understand the feeling of those who think that their opinion doesn't matter, and that they shouldn't care because no one seems to care about them. But we have the power to change our country! There are a few thousand politicians, and over 300 Million of us! We have the power, and we need to start exercising our right to petition our government to change!
For these Election Reform proposals to become reality, citizens need to contact their Representatives and demand election reform. Contact your city officials, State Representatives, and Congress Members and demand action to change the Presidential Nominating Process. With enough pressure for electoral reform, our elected representatives will be forced to look at the issues and to change the process!
To Find Out How To Contact Your Representatives, Click the Link Below:
whoismyrepresenatative.com
For more information on the National Primary Movement, please visit:
NationalPrimary.Net
www.fairvote.org
!
Comments are closed for this post.
From professional experience I can say that the candidates don't "ignore" the other states. Putting it bluntly, no candidate can literally afford to ignore them. There is simply not enough money in Iowa and New Hampshire for a candidate to win either one. The candidates will develop and grow their constituencies long before the first vote is cast, and will have to take stances on constituent-driven issues as a result.
The biggest problem I have with the 2004 calendar is that Iowa and New Hampshire are not particularly representative of the US as a whole, but they have a disproportionate impact on the Primary fields of each party. But they have one great advantage over many other states--they're managable sizes with relatively few media markets. If California, for example, were to be the first primary, then candidates hoping to win would have to meet tens of thousands of voters, attend fundraisers nightly, and spend the equivalent of a small African nation's GDP on commercials run in LA, San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Diego, all excruciatingly expensive markets. In a national priamry, candidates will have to rasie their money fast and early and apportion it across the entire US, so either they'd need to start a hell of a lot earlier or they'd need to raise cash a hell of a lot faster.
Which brings me to my sad conclusion: unless we have a working and realistically pricey public finance system, I don't think a national primary will serve any purpose except to nominate each party's best fundraisers.
I also think that there should be time limits on the amount of time for campaigning. Something like 6 months prior to the Primary, and 12 months prior to the General Election. That is plenty of time for candidates to spread their messages, and meet with voters. This whole 2 year long presidential campaign is rediculous!
But as far as the whole California issue is concerned, A National Primary would actually make the process more fair, because as it stands California will dominate the February 5th Mega Primary.. Restrict the candidates funding, and you force them to spread their resources more equitably to other states. Winning California alone would not give a candidate the nomination, they would have to compete in many states.
You know the candidates ignore states like South Dakota or Mississippi, or West Virginia, before now, they even ignored California except for perhaps the Hollywood cash..
Candidates are going to neglect Ohio and Pennsylvania this time around unless they too change their Primary to Feb. 5th. Then they'll be kissing Ohio and Pennsylvania's ass come the General Election..
regionalism.
Given the scenario of all 50 states voting at once, especially if we were going to enact something so (dare I say) draconian as limiting campaigning time, the most likely result would be that candidates would focus on regions where they had especially strong support to the exclusion of other regions, and NO candidate would hit a majority of delegates at Convention, leading to more smoke-filled backroom nominations. It would be a reversal for the democratic aspects of the primary process if this turned into a scenario where conventions are brokered by power elites.
Now, from a theoretical perspective on the role of the parties in these processes, brokered conventions might not be a bad thing, since a stronger party apparatus has some benefits for progressives worth considering. But from a strictly democratic point of view, steps that would create brokered conventions, even those steps taken to ostensibly raise the importance of the average primary vote across the country, could easily produce a less democratic primary system.