Well, we've done ourselves in nicely, haven't we?
In my excitement over Colorado's early caucus (meaning that we'll actually get to participate in the selection of the party nominees for once), I somehow missed California's decision to move its primary to the same 'Super Tuesday'. The states that moved their primaries up did so in part because they wanted to vote before California because the number of delegates for that state effectively ends the campaign.
In other words, the whole thing could be over in four weeks.
This is not quite what voters wanted. Before California became so huge, we actually had campaigns lasting several months. Less well-known candidates could surge to the front while the front-runners had to consider some of the smaller states. The three main candidates for the Democratic Party are close enough that, in reality, Super Tuesday may leave two or all three alive, leaving a dribble of small states and Texas to finish things off by early March. The Republican field appears to be a mess. Still, a month is a very short time - candidates don't have much room to distinguish themselves from one another.
I expect that we'll see a reform before the next mid-term election - several proposals are now on the table that would divide the country into various regions, by geography or population, setting up three or four primaries staggered through Spring. Governors in the West (not counting California) have long wanted a 'Super Tuesday' of our own, because our populations are generally too small to get our particular issues noticed. A population-based scheme, on the other hand, would allow the smallest states to vote first. I rather like that, because no one could be ignored.
Part of the fall-out from all of this is Colorado's return to the caucus system - prior to the last mid-term election, the legislature decided that it was foolish to spend money on a meaningless primary. Unfortunately, now we're stuck with it. We're the largest state using the caucus method, which is really inappropriate in large cities. Quite a few people will be left out of the voting because they work in the evening, as will those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because there is no absentee voting. Aside from that, caucuses are complicated and time-consuming (though perhaps no more so than waiting in line), and are likely to attract only those most interested in the political process. It's hard enough to get people to show up to vote on the first Tuesday in November, let alone to get them to set aside a whole evening to debate politics.
While this is likely to result in a more informed selection, that selection may not reflect the choice of most voters. On February 5, we may not want to delegate our votes to the best candidate, but to the one most likely to defeat the Republican nominee in November. Personally, I've been a fan of Dennis Kucinich since the last election, and my heart would vote for him on February 5th. However, I will probably throw my support behind Barack Obama as more likely to beat out Hilary. I do like Obama a lot, and think Hilary would be an excellent president. However, I don't think Hilary has any chance of winning in November, whereas Obama could - he looks very good in polls of independent and undecided voters in Colorado. (That's the trouble with the two-party system in the US. I'm not thrilled with the Democratic Party by any means, but this country - and the world - cannot afford another four years of Republican rule.)
In other words, the whole thing could be over in four weeks.
This is not quite what voters wanted. Before California became so huge, we actually had campaigns lasting several months. Less well-known candidates could surge to the front while the front-runners had to consider some of the smaller states. The three main candidates for the Democratic Party are close enough that, in reality, Super Tuesday may leave two or all three alive, leaving a dribble of small states and Texas to finish things off by early March. The Republican field appears to be a mess. Still, a month is a very short time - candidates don't have much room to distinguish themselves from one another.
I expect that we'll see a reform before the next mid-term election - several proposals are now on the table that would divide the country into various regions, by geography or population, setting up three or four primaries staggered through Spring. Governors in the West (not counting California) have long wanted a 'Super Tuesday' of our own, because our populations are generally too small to get our particular issues noticed. A population-based scheme, on the other hand, would allow the smallest states to vote first. I rather like that, because no one could be ignored.
Part of the fall-out from all of this is Colorado's return to the caucus system - prior to the last mid-term election, the legislature decided that it was foolish to spend money on a meaningless primary. Unfortunately, now we're stuck with it. We're the largest state using the caucus method, which is really inappropriate in large cities. Quite a few people will be left out of the voting because they work in the evening, as will those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan because there is no absentee voting. Aside from that, caucuses are complicated and time-consuming (though perhaps no more so than waiting in line), and are likely to attract only those most interested in the political process. It's hard enough to get people to show up to vote on the first Tuesday in November, let alone to get them to set aside a whole evening to debate politics.
While this is likely to result in a more informed selection, that selection may not reflect the choice of most voters. On February 5, we may not want to delegate our votes to the best candidate, but to the one most likely to defeat the Republican nominee in November. Personally, I've been a fan of Dennis Kucinich since the last election, and my heart would vote for him on February 5th. However, I will probably throw my support behind Barack Obama as more likely to beat out Hilary. I do like Obama a lot, and think Hilary would be an excellent president. However, I don't think Hilary has any chance of winning in November, whereas Obama could - he looks very good in polls of independent and undecided voters in Colorado. (That's the trouble with the two-party system in the US. I'm not thrilled with the Democratic Party by any means, but this country - and the world - cannot afford another four years of Republican rule.)