The state governments of Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up to January, defying a Democratic rule that allowed only New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina to vote in January. As a result,
Democratic candidates have been all but forbidden to campaign in these two states. Why?
I don't understand. It sounds as if the DNC is acting like a defied child, establishing useless rules. Are there stated reasons that it cites for allowing Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to go first? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Lamenting the never-ending campaign cycle some 16 years ago (when it was months shorter) a researcher at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy suggested that we have a single, national primary day. Can someone tell me why this doesn't make a whole lot of sense? There are some really significant problems in this country that derive from placing states like Iowa on a pedestal (such as our fascination with ethanol). Why is the DNC standing behind such madness? Surely there is a good reason.
2 comments:
It's a matter of specialization. We essentially outsource the nomination process to early states. They do the work of vetting the candidates in a more intimate setting and as a tradeoff we agree to generally go along with their decision. Given the early states are relatively representative it is a much more efficient process compared to one national primary. Ideally states would take turns being the first.
As for not allowing Michigan and Florida any delegates at the convention, I assume it is a strategic decision meant to discourage the ever earlier primaries that would have the effect of sapping candidates funds and momentum well in advance of the general election. It seems like a reasonable strategy for ensuring your candidate is as competitive as possible come November.
KLR, it looks like you've been reading Harford in FT. Do you think that later states in the primary feel more committed to their candidate because they know they are choosing the winner? What I mean by this is it reasonable to assume that people in the later states change their vote as the primaries take place so that they will be on the winning team? Do the winners in the later states win by a greater margin?
If all states voted on the same day, one candidate is not likely to win 50% of the delegates. The voting margins would probably be very close. Would the majority of the voters then support the winning candidate (even though possibly only 35% of the people voted for that person) as strong as they would have supported the candidate had they been able to vote in a late primary?
Post a Comment