Submitted by Nick (not verified) on June 8, 2008 - 2:49pm.
I agree with the notion of staggered primaries based on a lottery system, rather than having them all on the same day. However, I think there still should be provisions for putting a few smaller primaries first. It would really be difficult for a lesser-known or lesser-funded candidate to break out of the pack if his/her first contest was California. This is the one thing that IA and NH have going for them; they're small.
The downside of IA and NH is that they're not representative of the nation, geographically, racially, or otherwise. I liked the DNC's attempt this year to bring Nevada and South Carolina into the fold as early voters. Although the first two states still managed to suck all the air out of the room this time around, I think that establishing a cluster of smaller contests first can be an overall plus.
However, I would take it even further than just adding SC and NV for diversity. What's really missing from the primary cycle is the voice of urban voters. I would love to see an early primary take place in a city like Baltimore. Even though we're used to seeing state-based elections, there is no real reason why the primaries have to be organized by state. The DNC can designate any area it wants as a target for a primary, change its rules accordingly, and work in cooperation with state and local election boards accordingly.
Because they're working with a smaller population base, candidates can still work small crowds, have photo-ops, and do all the things they love to do in IA and NH that reflect small-scale politics. But instead of stopping in the diner, they might stop in the barbershop. Instead of pandering to the ethanol lobby, they'd pander to urban interests. On a national scale, it would shatter the stereotype that the "real" America is small-town America, and make people realize that city dwellers are just as much a part of this country as rural dwellers.
I wouldn't know the first step to take to make this idea reality. And ultimately, I think there probably won't be real change without federalizing the election process as the previous commenter suggested. But if we're stuck with the system we have, we might as well play to its strengths and enhance it by bringing real diversity into the process.
PS, Congratulations, Marc, on the new show; I will be listening on Wednesdays.
Baltimore primary?
I agree with the notion of staggered primaries based on a lottery system, rather than having them all on the same day. However, I think there still should be provisions for putting a few smaller primaries first. It would really be difficult for a lesser-known or lesser-funded candidate to break out of the pack if his/her first contest was California. This is the one thing that IA and NH have going for them; they're small.
The downside of IA and NH is that they're not representative of the nation, geographically, racially, or otherwise. I liked the DNC's attempt this year to bring Nevada and South Carolina into the fold as early voters. Although the first two states still managed to suck all the air out of the room this time around, I think that establishing a cluster of smaller contests first can be an overall plus.
However, I would take it even further than just adding SC and NV for diversity. What's really missing from the primary cycle is the voice of urban voters. I would love to see an early primary take place in a city like Baltimore. Even though we're used to seeing state-based elections, there is no real reason why the primaries have to be organized by state. The DNC can designate any area it wants as a target for a primary, change its rules accordingly, and work in cooperation with state and local election boards accordingly.
Because they're working with a smaller population base, candidates can still work small crowds, have photo-ops, and do all the things they love to do in IA and NH that reflect small-scale politics. But instead of stopping in the diner, they might stop in the barbershop. Instead of pandering to the ethanol lobby, they'd pander to urban interests. On a national scale, it would shatter the stereotype that the "real" America is small-town America, and make people realize that city dwellers are just as much a part of this country as rural dwellers.
I wouldn't know the first step to take to make this idea reality. And ultimately, I think there probably won't be real change without federalizing the election process as the previous commenter suggested. But if we're stuck with the system we have, we might as well play to its strengths and enhance it by bringing real diversity into the process.
PS, Congratulations, Marc, on the new show; I will be listening on Wednesdays.