National Primary? Bring it on!
Ed, your point about California is well taken. And it highlights the real problem with our current system of choosing a Presidential candidate.
I’ve been following politics as long as you have (We won’t reveal how long lest our readers wonder who we’re referring to when we write about “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.”) and I’ve never seen a national campaign season start so early. We may not be preparing for primaries 90 days out from mid terms but the money raising efforts were going full bore within a couple of weeks of the election as well as the battle of perceptions between the acknowledged front runners. It forced Obama to announce his formal candidacy 94 days after the November mid terms - surely long before he would have preferred. But it takes a lot of time to raise $100 million plus hence the early start date.
I disagree this is necessarily bad for democracy or the discussion of issues as you posit. But it has a deadening affect on our politics. Outside of the activists and political junkies, few people are paying attention to much of anything with regards to the Presidential race at this early date. And that really won’t change very much until we head into January of next year and the primaries.
So what’s the answer? How about a National Primary? With the proportional delegate system in place now, a state like California would not necessarily play the determining role in who wins, although a National Primary would give it the importance it deserves due to its size. And as for smaller states, they may get shafted as far as candidates visiting their little towns and hamlets (certainly taking much of the charm out of the primaries and the sight of important politicians paying homage to all sorts of local customs and traditions), but in a true federal system, their importance will not be blown out of proportion as is the case with Iowa and New Hampshire. Besides, candidates spend most of their money in the top 20 TV markets already - not much would change there.
What would change with a National Primary day as compared to the spread out system we have now for us junkies is the drama and the possibility of a come from behind effort by one or more candidates. But once you get past the first 2 or 3 primary contests, can you name any successful candidate who has “come back” to take the nomination? In fact, for all intents and purposes, the victor over the past 30 years has wrapped up the nomination by March 1, building an insurmountable lead and having all the momentum on their side.
I realize the radical change in tradition such a National Primary day would entail. But a June date for that winner take all primary followed 60 days later by the conventions and 90 days after that by the election could shorten the campaign season significantly.
