Posted on 05/24/2003 11:49:52 AM PDT by Tall_Texan
With news that more and more states, sick of being ignored on the ridiculously early "Super Tuesday" in March, have moved up their presidential primaries as far out as early February, it makes one question "how early is too early?".
New Hampshire has a law that they should have their primary seven days before any other state's primary. Iowa has a law that their caucus should be held no later than eight days before any other caucuses (actually "caca" would seem the more apt plural here).
No problems there. Except that other states are jealous of all the time, money and attention these two states are now getting as presidential contenders and their groupies fan out to find voters. So South Carolina Democrats moved up their primary to the first week of February and, to show they mean business, held a candidate debate a full 18 months before Election Day. Other states are quicky following the lead.
Any candidate worth his salt whines like a baby at the cost of running for high political office. And, yet, they've lengthened campaigning to the point where it practically doesn't stop long enough for anyone to actually govern.
Who isn't absolutely sick of candidate forums, appearances, attack ads, flyers, yard signs, telemarketers and all that comes with them by the time you finally get a chance to cast a vote? Hasn't the campaign season grown ridiculously long without starting it even sooner each election cycle?
Besides turning stomachs and making a presidential candidacy a two-year travelling carnival, there's a danger to having the nominations decided nine months before the election.
What happens if the candidate suddenly becomes unelectable? What if, by mid-March, Candidate X has enough delegates wrapped up to win the nomination and then, in the additional four months it takes to get to the convention, the situation changes?
Maybe the candidate has a Trent Lott moment. Maybe he's caught diddling his teenaged daughter. Maybe some hidden secret from his past comes out that shows he helped arm Al Qaeda. Maybe he slaps a woman in public.
What does his party do then? They can't disavow delegates fairly, publicly and honestly won - at least not on the first ballot. If Candidate X refuses to step aside, the party is stuck with a man who's politcally dead in the water.
A shorter campaign season doesn't eliminate the chance that any of these things could happen but it does allow more time for the candidate to be vetted before being chosen. The parties will have more room to date the candidate before getting married to him.
I think lengthy election seasons are bad for the country and decrease voter turnout. They produce "election fatigue" to all but the most diehard of political addicts.
Like college football programs, the states will not agree to shorten the season themselves. Somebody will need to make them stop themselves.
Enter the federal government. If I had the power, I'd pass a law to prevent presidential primaries and binding caucuses from taking place before April 15th of that election year. It seems appropriate that most Americans should have to pay their taxes before thinking about who should get their vote. New Hampshire and Iowa can still go first, respectively, and then maybe the other states can rotate weeks through the end of June. 10 weeks divided by 50 states is just five a week. Or maybe we could make the law so that the states with the largest populations (and thus the most delegates) must go last - providing increasing drama if the contest stays close.
Imagine if Candidates A and B are in a dogfight for the nomination and they have to duel the week of June 28th in California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania to wrap up the nomination. Think the all-news networks wouldn't love that? Think the country, itself, might show more interest by that time?
And great for political strategists too. Do you tell your candidate to flood the early smaller primaries with campaign dollars so as to establish momentum or hold it for the big push at the end when the biggest states are on the line?
With July and August being the traditional convention months and Labor Day being the unofficial kickoff for the national campaign, an April-June primary season would be enough time to flesh out the candidates without getting too burned out on them.
As it is now, too often the battle is over by March and we have to put up with half a year of national campaigning and posturing with very little real news to arouse interest in the general public.
I don't know if a simple law would accomplish this or if you'd need a constitutional amendment but, either way, I'd support it.
But the alternative is having the 2012 primaries begin in October, 2011. That's where this is all heading if the madness is not stopped.
Convincing States to co-operate is very much the role for Fed-Gov, as is the method in which federal offices are filled.
you're probable right, though, in that setting a time for primaries would probably reqire a constitutional amendment.
You already know the answer. The SCOTUS decided to hear the case (which they did not have to do), and they overruled the Florida Supreme Court (which they did not have to do).
If the SCOTUS was just a little bit more Liberal, the Florida Supreme Court would have prevailed and Gore would be President today.
Even though it's the business of the states, the US Constitution is whatever the SCOTUS interprets it to be at any given time depending on the prevailing ideology of its members.
The FSC disagreed with that and they tried to change the election rules after the fact, thereby, violating their state's constitution. The SCOTUS, I think, took the case on that pretext and not on an election pretext.
Even I think that would be giving Fox too much power.
I do like the idea of requiring all primaries to be on April 15, it would be difficult to argue for raising taxes on that date.
Seriously, the federal government doesn't have to anything about it. I would prefer the parties to take action instead. The parties already do some things that could be applicable to primary reform.
Unlike the US House of Representatives, the state delegations to the party conventions are not strictly allocated proportionally to population. States that historically vote for a particular party's nominees, are rewarded with larger delegations than states that routinely vote against the party's nominees for President, Congress, Senate, etc. In the Republican Party, Texas gets a larger delegation proportionally to population than California, New York, or Massachussetts. One or both of the political parties could reward states with later primaries with larger delegations. This would mean a state would find its own self interest may lie in having its primary or convention later rather than sooner.
Someone will sue over any change. I think it is much better for the parties to make changes on their own rather than let the federal government get involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.