Primary Pendemonium

States Causing Chaos in Presidential Nomination Process

The fiercest battle surrounding the 2008 presidential election may not be taking place among the many candidates campaigning for the White House, but rather among the states vying to be the first in the nation to hold a presidential primary.

Florida’s decision 10 days ago to break ranks with a Democratic National Committee (DNC) schedule of early contests and slate its own primary for Jan. 29 now threatens a chain reaction that could prompt other states, including Iowa and New Hampshire to switch their dates.

Maybe this childishness will result in all states holding primaries the same day.

A fella can hope, can’t he?

Comments 6

  1. Adam Graham wrote:

    Maybe this childishness will result in all states holding primaries the same day.

    Yet, it’ll be great to mess up the system beyond recognition and guarantee that no one is elected other than a celebrity or the pick of the establishment. On the bright side, everyone could go to the polls, equally uninformed.

    Posted 03 Jun 2007 at 12:33 am
  2. Advogado wrote:

    Ever since 9 (giver or take) southern states jumped ahead of Wisconsin, which used to have the third primary after Iowa and New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday in 1988, we have gotten nothing but mediocre to bad presidential nominees out of the primaries. Any reorganization needs to return Wisconsin to the third primary or the solution will be unsatisfactory and ineffective

    Posted 05 Jun 2007 at 7:35 pm
  3. John wrote:

    As I see it the best system would be to split the country into a handful of regions, and have primaries in each a week or two apart and cycle the order that they happen each election. That way you avoid the problem that a single day primary tends to favor party insiders and big fund raisers, but you also stop inexplicably giving Iowa and New Hampshire hugely disproportionate political power.

    Posted 06 Jun 2007 at 5:29 pm
  4. Steve Nicoloso wrote:

    As much as I am loathe to agree with John about anything ;-), I think he’s about right here. A single day nationwide primary would grossly favor the biggest fundraisers, which is the exact opposite of what any sensible person would want. Splitting the country up into ten or twelve rotating regions having primaries every two weeks or so, that seems sensible and fair. It awards favor to a particular region in a particular year, but never the same region twice in a row. Once they’ve gone first, they go to the end of the line.

    Posted 15 Jun 2007 at 6:44 pm
  5. Funky Dung wrote:

    “guarantee that no one is elected other than a celebrity or the pick of the establishment”

    And that’s different from the current system how?

    “As I see it the best system would be to split the country into a handful of regions, and have primaries in each a week or two apart and cycle the order that they happen each election. That way you avoid the problem that a single day primary tends to favor party insiders and big fund raisers, but you also stop inexplicably giving Iowa and New Hampshire hugely disproportionate political power.”

    That seems like a very reasonable solution. Adam, do you concur?

    Posted 26 Jun 2007 at 10:12 am
  6. Funky Dung wrote:

    My primary beef (har har) with primaries is that by the time PA has them, all of the good candidates (if there were any to start with) have already bowed out.

    Posted 26 Jun 2007 at 10:14 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *