I think if you even have to ask the question the answer is obvious, but CBS tries to play it balanced anyway.
Okay, so I’m assuming you’ve watched the video, and if so you’ll know that most of the candidates spend nearly ALL of their time in TWO states. Only Giuliani has spent any significant in nearly all of the states. That’s craziness.
Also, the fact that the Dems have punished Michigan and Florida is beyond dumb. So they moved their primaries sooner. So what? States should be able to do whatever they want. Now their delegates won’t even count in the end, and the last time I checked, the Dems badly needed Florida to win the White House.
I do like the idea of doing regional contests and choosing which region goes first randomly. That’s similar to what I proposed some months back, but we’ll see if that happens. I can almost guarantee you that Iowa and New Hampshire will have a hissy fit the likes of which you’ll never seen.
But here’s the end game: something has to be done. This is crazy. We can’t keep going on like this, putting all of our eggs into two baskets. And I’m talking about both parties here. There’s nothing that makes those two states special besides the fact that they both have put state laws in place to ensure that they’ll be first and second. That’s great for Iowans and New Hampshirites, but, yeah, those two states account for a grand total of 11 electoral votes in the general election. Forgive me if I feel that’s not democratic.
For a good idea of how slanted this all is, I give you the example of my home state Missouri. Sure, a lot of people think of us as fly-over country, but we’ve voted for the eventual President in pretty much every election since 1900. Seriously. It’s crazy how much of a swing state Missouri is. AND we have 11 electoral votes, which is equal to Iowa and New Hampshire combined.
So you’d think if we really want to provide a fair representation of middle America, you’d go with a state that’s swung for the eventual President nearly every time in the past 100 years. You’d think a state like that would an be part of the early process if not THE first state? But no, it’s Iowa…and New Hampshire. And Missouri comes so late in the primary process that we’re pretty much an afterthought.
Okay, enough with my rants, but this is yet another way that the two party system is ridiculously fractured. But this is one of those times where change will only happen if we demand it. Because while I usually put a lot of blame of the candidates’ shoudlers, none of them can come out and say anything or they lose. Nobody will disparage the system and risk the chance of alienating the voters in those two states. Not a chance.
In any event, what do you think?
I ran across an article where the Governor of Ohio says, and I quote, “I’d like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end.’ ”
Also, here are some demographics to back up the argument that Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t really that representative of that nation as a whole. In particular, note the lack of the minorities, which is not trivial when you’re talking about 25% of the nation’s population.
So yeah, looks like I’m not the only one who’s thinking about this. But which state should it be? Ohio? Florida? Michigan? Again, Missouri is looking pretty good if you look at the census stats. The biggest problem is there aren’t enough Hispanics living in Missouri to be representative of the nation as a whole. But what if the Missouri primary was followed by Arizona? Their census stats pretty much even out Missouri’s but they’re not necessarily known as a swing state.
Again, I put it to you…which states are more deserving than Iowa and New Hampshire?
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 and is filed under Democrats, Iowa, Money, New Hampshire, Republicans, Video. 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.