10.22.2007: Unloading on frontloading
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.
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 (compared to 380,000 registered voters in Lake 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.
So we're asking for you to create your own nomination calendar and share it with our readers at CitizenU.
Be sure to link to CBS2School to learn more about the role of the Iowa Caucus in the nomination process.
posted by CitizenU @ 9:36 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Four words: Let Illinois go first!
2 words: National Primary
This would ensure that the candidate who the public truly wants would win because a national primary would essentially be a national popular vote, which would not add weight to nothing states like Iowa or New Hampshire. Thus, in order to weight out the winner-take-all system of the electoral college and to ensure that each person's vote is still worth the same no matter what state they live in, a National Primary (which would be used to influence the convention's nominee, not guarantee it) makes too much sense to ignore.
Until Next Time,
J. Caesar
Doesn't the idea of a national party seem rather...facist? Political parties are not a part of the federal government and the government shouldn't legislate their internal decisions. While a national primary day may be beneficial (and even that is hotly contended among political scientists) it is deeply unconstitutional. The government simply cannot legislate the schedules of independent organizations. Political parties aren't legally a part of the government, and enfolding them into the government is putting us on the path that leads to the intertwined government/party holding sway in China. it's wrong.
Mr. Didech, it appears that you may want to ask Drake University for a refund. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about holding a National Primary. While men such as yourself will claim that states have the reserved rights to set primary election dates, laws, etc. However, I point you first to Article I, Section 8, which notes that "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..." and, in this situation where primary elections have made the votes of certain states essentially worthless (i.e. disenfranchising some Americans), it is both necessary and proper for Congress to intervene. Next, I point you to Article 6 where it notes that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land", thus it is supreme over the state's "right" to make election law.
Political parties are part of the problem, but if we eliminate the tax break on 527 donations or cap the amount that one can give to a PAC, political parties can once again be part of the solution.
Until Next Time,
J. Caesar
Mr. Caesar, sometimes it's better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt, and no, Napoleon did not say that (it was Lincoln). I understand that you believe in a National Primary out of fairness to each of our voting constituents, but I believe that an extension of the (not-so) invisible hand of government into what is essentially a private matter of quantifying popular opinion is wrong. I agree with you in theory that a national primary would neutralize the advantages of one state over another (in this case Iowa and New Hampshire), but you have to remember that the primaries and caucuses are merely recommendations to each political party, gauges of popular support. Violating the Constitution is forcing a state like Iowa to hold a primary when they've elected to hold a caucus, which is there constitutional right under the 10th amendment. Abuse of the Elastic clause is not the answer to everything. If Congress were to ratify a piece of legislation setting a minimum date for primary elections/caucuses, then maybe that would be a step in the right direction, but to overrule the states on what is essentially their independent and unrestrained choice is unconstitutional. Mr. Didech, Drake has been providing you with a fine education. Unfortunately for Mr. Caesar, NCLB still has a few stragglers.
Regards,
Marcus Aurelius
Mr. Aurelius, thank you for the defense. Oddly enough, the point I'm about to make is the result of a converation I had with a political science professor here at Drake. The biggest problem with the primaries isn't the frontloading. Even if there was a national primary day, turnout wouldn't dramatically increase. The only people who vote in primaries are the activists, the idealists, the extremes of the respective parties. As a result, primary candidates try to run as far from the center as possible in order to gain a nomination, and the public is left with two extreme candidates neither of whom represent the moderation with which American people generally view most political issues. The solution to this is what we're doing right now. Discussion, particularly under the aegis of education. Educators should make citizenry a priority, and a major part of being a citizen is being politically involved, no matter where one is idealogically. The American people should know that being a moderate doesn't mean you sit on the sidelines. That's the problem with the primaries.
Post a Comment
<< Home