I-o-wa(nt) a better system
January 4th 2008 00:31
After months and months (and months) of obsessing over the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, the day of reckoning has arrived. Iowa is voting/caucusing tonight. I've always lamented the unfairness of a system that puts so much emphasis on two fairly small and unrepresentative states. Candidates for president spend a great deal of time and money focusing on those two primaries. The result is that the choices for the later states are limited as some of the initial candidates inevitably run out of money or drop out of the race before or right after Iowa and New Hampshire. Apparently, I'm not the only one troubled by the amount of attention afforded to those first two primaries. A recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution expresses my sentiments very well:
I couldn't agree more. The power given to Iowa and New Hampshire is unfair to other small states and to larger states.
As far as those states being representative of the country as whole -- they're not:
It's just not fair that so much attention is given to those two states. The residents of the other 48 states are given very little attention and are left to choose amongst the candidates who are still standing after the grueling Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
I don't really know what the best solution is, but I would favor a process whereby all primaries are held on the same day. And if smaller states are concerned that they would be ignored under such a system, we could maybe give each state the same number of delegates. Then, the amount of attention and power given to each state would be more equitable. The current system is grossly unfair, though. We need to revamp this whole process before 2012.
Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.
According to a national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two parties' nominations.
"They have way too much — WAY too much — say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."
According to a national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two parties' nominations.
"They have way too much — WAY too much — say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."
I couldn't agree more. The power given to Iowa and New Hampshire is unfair to other small states and to larger states.
As far as those states being representative of the country as whole -- they're not:
Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.
It's just not fair that so much attention is given to those two states. The residents of the other 48 states are given very little attention and are left to choose amongst the candidates who are still standing after the grueling Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.
I don't really know what the best solution is, but I would favor a process whereby all primaries are held on the same day. And if smaller states are concerned that they would be ignored under such a system, we could maybe give each state the same number of delegates. Then, the amount of attention and power given to each state would be more equitable. The current system is grossly unfair, though. We need to revamp this whole process before 2012.
| 70 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Wouldn't it be great if the campaigning started in May, the primaries were held in July, the Conventions in Sept. and the elections (right on schedule) in Nov.? We could have the whole thing done in months instead of years, the voters wouldn't lose interest, the candidates wouldn't have to have so much money, and everyone could relax a little! They'd even have enough time to discuss policies rather than personalities!
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Personally I think both sides should have a defined leader, a representitive voice if ou will, and it should be known as 'leader of the opposition' when that is the position taken. Term limits themselves are ridiculous, if people want the same president they have every right in the world to vote for the same president.
So as fara s I can say (this, coming from me living a few thousand miles away) I think that is the inherint problem with the US system and trying to address the results of the problem are shortsited. Then again the way the system is set up in the US makes way for some people who genuinely deserve a run at leadership instead of just the ones who have the most political influence, I mean hillary clinton does not have a free ride under the american system but she might have had under the Australian one.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Personally I think both sides should have a defined leader, a representitive voice if ou will, and it should be known as 'leader of the opposition' when that is the position taken. Term limits themselves are ridiculous, if people want the same president they have every right in the world to vote for the same president.
So as fara s I can say (this, coming from me living a few thousand miles away) I think that is the inherint problem with the US system and trying to address the results of the problem are shortsited. Then again the way the system is set up in the US makes way for some people who genuinely deserve a run at leadership instead of just the ones who have the most political influence, I mean hillary clinton does not have a free ride under the american system but she might have had under the Australian one.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I like your idea about a shorter election cycle -- especially the notion that less money would be required. As it is, you have be rich or raise a lot of money (and, thus, owe a lot of favors after you're elected). The business of politics is just that -- a business. Those who are in that business (including political consultants, the media, etc.) benefit from it being a long, drawn-out process. It may be good for them, but it's bad for the country.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Anyone who is an incumbent will be bringing in more or less the same (granted with some exceptions). I do kind of see where you're coming from, a government made up of incumbents usually ends up being stuck in a stalemate of stubborness since everyone knows better than everyone else. Could be why younger politicians seem to be more pro-active, they haven't been eaten down by the monotomy of politics.
So if the system of limiting the number of terms a president can run is to force voters to change government rather than go for the safe bet then it would be better to apply it to other senators.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I also agree with S.L. it would be great if the campaigning season was shorten. That way we could stick to the issues, and would not have time for the negative mudslinging, that goes on when people get tired of the hearing the issues over and over.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate