What Is The Tri-Partisan Solution?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ElectionsIt sounds intriguing at first glance…
Senators Lamar Alexander, Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Lieberman have introduced a bill to revamp the presidential nominating process for the 2012 election. Their proposal, which can be read in full here, mandates a rotating series of regional contests. Each of four regions - East, West, South, and Midwest - would be assigned a month between March and June during which its states could hold primaries and caucuses. The month assignments would change every presidential election cycle. During any sixteen-year period, each region would get a turn at the leadoff slot. The three senators sponsoring the legislation believe this system could counteract what they call a “race to the front” in the current scheduling of state primaries.
I like the idea of a rotating cycle. That way every state can eventually get their time in the spotlight.
Er…or not?
[...] Iowa and New Hampshire still get special treatment - holding their contests before March 1, when the first regional primary can begin. According to Sen. Alexander, “the traditional warm-up contest in Iowa and New Hampshire would still come first. But they would return to their proper role as ‘off Broadway’ opportunities for lesser-known candidates to become well enough known to compete on the four-month-long big stage.”
I’m sorry, but “off Broadway”? He’s kidding about that right?
In any event, what good is this solution if we still have Iowa and New Hampshire essentially determining who our nominees are going to be? Their special status certainly isn’t earned, and I think this is one tradition that needs to be seriously scrutinized if we’re going to reshape the way we determine the order of all the other states.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
As concerned as I am about “I want to be first!” battle for presidential primaries, I’m not so worried about having the first two be New Hampshire and Iowa. As a practical matter, there’s a very long history there, so tinkering with them will be harder than tinkering with more modern developments like Super Tuesday.
Looking in New Hampshire, in particular, I see several benefits. It’s a very small state, so every candidate is able to meet individually and in very small groups with a significant cross-section of the state. Because its first and because there has historically been a decent interval before the next contest, the people of New Hampshire get VERY personal attention from the candidates. I think that is quite beneficial, allowing them to stand in proxy for the rest of us. I’m not sure it can be duplicated in many other states. In any state that’s larger either geographically or population-wise, candidates would have to rely more on mass media to reach most of the state’s voters. The victor in New Hampshire is hardly guaranteed to go on to win his party’s nomination. As the article you cite notes, it does give a chance to someone who has trouble with fund-raising early on to give a strong early showing… precisely because it’s not as expensive to campaign in New Hampshire (more stump speeches, fewer commercials, and the commercials are probably cheaper).
I’m not sure the same case can be made for Iowa. Unlike New Hampshire, it has several particular special interests which must be pandered to in order to prevail. If it weren’t for Iowa, we wouldn’t be obsessed with Ethanol as the only possible alternative for oil, and we would have reduced farm subsidies long before now, I think.
So I say let New Hampshire keep pride of place. Beyond that, I think the regional method may have much to commend it. I’ll look at it more closely.