Primary System Unfair To Other States
By Chris Freind
Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say —yet again
Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news. On the
upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in
November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted.
The
not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in
Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will — yet again — have
virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.
In other
words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by
Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter
cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically
crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates.
Likewise,
an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire
— which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an
“r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the
lobsta’.
And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started
The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the
coronation.
Only in America.
Where does that leave the
rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other
less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.
So why does the
nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and
is there a better way? Lack of political courage, probably not, and
resoundingly yes.
Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are
wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with
salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.
But having the first and last word
in the election process is insane. No state should hold that much
power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all
negative:
-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.
-That
resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the
not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has
already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local
races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national
contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.
– The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.
With
the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance,
which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted,
nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation
suffers.
What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in
Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an
Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New
Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana
rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?
The present
rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch
with Americans’ varied interests — and being forced to take positions
on those issues —are increasingly responsive only to voters in those
three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be
damned.
The system is the way it is because the Establishments of
both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and
(relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out
primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders
and give it to —God forbid — the people. And the more quickly a
nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary
season, with more time to raise cash for November.
But since the
interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they
prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to
retain the status quo.
It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.
Frontrunners are almost always part
of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers
either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up
spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular
constituency —such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the
ethanol corn vote in Iowa.
Admittedly, it is an extremely
difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been
misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New
Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to
spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation — and the Party
hierarchy — why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so
flawed. In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not
enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.
And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning
the nomination. But he didn’t.
And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani
skipped all three states to first compete in Florida. Had he actually
had a competent campaign and resonating message — including strongly
advocating why the system was unfair — the outcome might have been
different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was
in significant debt). But he didn’t.
So can it change? Tough to
say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it
is volatile, angry and unpredictable.
To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:
1)
Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states,
and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts
the voting. That would offer enough of a variation that local or even
regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.
2) Perhaps
better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the
diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only
three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a
significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that
nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign
costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising. But campaign
costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in
the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset
the increased costs of running a larger campaign.
Switching to a
new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It
would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw
their hat into the ring — given that many now stay out because they
feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in
the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has
been denied to them for far too long.
Given the state of America,
due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of
courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power
to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to
choose our leader.
We could do no worse.
