| A Broken Primary System |
|
|
|
| by Tara Ross | Fri, Feb 1, 2008, 03:36 PM |
|
I have been watching the events of the past few weeks and wondering how on earth seven states—Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Florida—have come to have such a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process. Okay, I might as well confess. I am downright mad about it. Seven states should not have the power to narrow down the field of presidential candidates to four individuals—two Republicans and two Democrats. (Sorry, Mike Huckabee, you will not win the Republican nomination.) Voters in 43 states should not have to sit by, watching helplessly as a handful of states make decisions for the entire country. It’s wrong. The presidential primary system needs to be fixed. Voting should occur simultaneously across the nation. The current system is not only unfair to the vast majority of voters, but it results in candidates who are not representative of the parties that they aspire to lead. Does anyone really think that the top two contenders for the Republican nomination would be John McCain and Mitt Romney if primaries had been held simultaneously in all 50 states? Of course not. Don’t forget that McCain garnered many of his early votes in Neither McCain nor Romney is the best possible representative for the Republican Party. McCain, in particular, would be a complete disaster. His voting record is inconsistent with the Republican Party platform. He fought Bush’s tax cuts (although he is trying to take it back now). He championed legislation that stifles free political speech in this country. He undermined Bush’s efforts to appoint originalist judges to the bench by participating in the Gang of 14. Republicans need a small government conservative to lead them back from their recent spendthrift, big government, anti-Republican ways. McCain is not the man to do it. Many voters in this country know that. But they are stuck with decisions made by a handful of pro-McCain voters in Romney might not be such a bad nominee (assuming he does everything he says he will do), but he’s had difficulty catching on with many voters. Personally, I don’t care one way or another about his religion, but some people seem reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Or maybe it’s because he appears a little too smooth and polished—too much of a politician. Either way, one has to think that he would not be in contention for the nomination if primaries had been held simultaneously across the nation. Too many voters seem unable to relate to him. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson should have had the opportunity to showcase their strengths in other parts of the country. Oh, okay. Huckabee has strengths in a few places, too. He was entitled to make the most of those. Supporters of all candidates deserve to make their voices heard before the selection process is basically complete. The Republican nomination will be decided by the time that Texans get to vote in a month. I fear that Republicans will suffer nationally when an inadequate representative is selected by our broken primary process. The party will suffer when voters (like me) decide that the nominee is not a good leader for the Republican Party and consider voting for a third party candidate. The system needs to be fixed. All states should vote simultaneously. In the meantime, Texans should take steps to ensure that their votes have a greater impact during the next set of presidential primaries. Let’s hold our next presidential primary during the first week of January 2012.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (10)
...
written by michael a. , February 02, 2008 I heard a proposal to have rotating regional primaries (Northeast, Southwest, etc..). To have all the primaries occur at once would be an incredible financial drain on any candidate and the one with the most money would win. That's not always the best conclusion. If it was one part of the country, candidates would not have as many travel expenses.... just a thought.
...
written by Judd D. Bradbury , February 02, 2008 It is also possible that preferences derived from talk show hosts and hedge fund managers may not be the best way to select presidents. Yes there are a large number of people that believe the electoral college is a great system that protects the fly over people from getting over run by big city types who are heavily influenced by paid media. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes as your candidate did not win. And by not win, I mean, did not win anything, anywhere. Some of us have waited eight long years to send someone to Washington that knows how to cut wasteful spending. Perhaps you will join us. The MAC is Back!
...
written by Ian Perry , February 02, 2008 If anything I would prefer the voting to be staggered more. A single day nation-wide primary would make it even harder for candidates with lower name recognition to compete. A system where the states are rotated sounds nice. Of course part of the problem here is the herd mentality that prevails amongst the electorate. McCain and Romney each have only a small fraction of the delegates needed to win the nomination. If you don't like the sound of "President Romney," or "President McCain," then try and get people to vote for someone else.
...
written by TexasGoGirl , February 02, 2008 I agree with your point about 7 states having too much power to narrow down the field, but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. By saying that there are only 2 GOP contenders left, you are paroting back the media's choice of anointed candidates. Yes, there are some who will vote for Mike Huckabee, but even more, what about Ron Paul? You didn't even mention him, and he is still in the running, despite massive media blackout (as you just demonstrated). You said: "Republicans need a small government conservative to lead them back from their recent spendthrift, big government, anti-Republican ways." Have you listened to anything Ron Paul has said? He's the only candidate proposing CUTS to government spending and providing real solutions to our 7 trillion national deficit. He's the only one who has NEVER voted for a tax increase, NEVER voted to rob Social Security, NEVER voted to raise congressional pay, NEVER taken a penny from a lobbyist, NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget, NEVER participated in the congressional pension program, and consistently returned surplus money from his office operating budget to the treasury. He's also the only one who is calling the GOP back to their platform, which he follows and no one else does. Check out: www.ronpaul2008.com (the official campaign Web site) or www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com (the grassroots site).
...
written by Texan4Huckabee , February 03, 2008 i would never vote for mccain or romney and i'm not about to let the republican party count out my vote just b/c they won't consider Gov Mike Huckabee. see you at the tx primary...i'm voting early. mikehuckabee.com
...
written by HSH , February 04, 2008 Tara -- Let me get this straight. Your party wrote its own rules. You don't like the way things are working out, so now you want things changed to suit yourself. Maybe the Rs should have considered the effect of winner-take-all rather than proportional, which the Ds wisely chose. Guiliani and Thompson both had ample opportunity to get to know the voters. Guiliani's problem was that the voters did get to know him and the more they knew the less they liked. Thompson's problem is that he never seemed like he wanted the job to begin with. That, too, was obvious.
...
written by Michele Samuelson , February 05, 2008 While I'm furious that all of the conservatives in the race dropped out before Texas got to have a say, I'm not in favor of moving our primary. While it would give us ample influence and more of a "say" in the final decision for the presidential nominees, it would seriously hurt down-ballot candidates, especially those challenging incumbents. With that in mind, I would be in favor of separating the presidential primary, eliminating it altogether, or as you suggested, having all states hold primaries at once. I'm also intrigued by Committeman Crocker's idea for a rotating, lottery-system primary. I do agree - the party will suffer when voters like you and me give serious consideration to third-party candidates come November. I'll also argue that the party will suffer when even more voters like us opt to stay home altogether - hurting candidates down-ballot, and costing us crucial seats in the state legislature and local governments.
...
written by Ian Perry , February 05, 2008 How have all the conservatives in the race dropped out?
...
written by Hopefull , February 06, 2008 Texas tried to be part of Super Tuesday but the Texas Senate botched that. We need closed primaries if the system is going to be fixed. If people want to be considered "independent" then stay that way and get their own primary going. "Mac" isn't back, watch the media obliterate him day after the nomination. So much for that media love affair. None of the choices are inspiring. Looks like it is a democrat year but if republicans can survive the first two years, I believe we can get true conservatives back in Congress and rebuild the republican party. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
