Time to pay for some club's internal elections
Yet another instance of bringing up a big topic, and then spending all your time picking at a tiny piece of it so that the reader forgets he had a much bigger question when he started considering the issue. To wit: this CNN piece about a journalism professor from Iowa questioning why Iowa gets the power of the first primary election in presidential politics. After raising the question, the article quickly descends to the "are not - are too" debate we come to expect of such things. Regardless of the quality of Professor Bloom's article, the validity of his opinions on the state, or the fierce pride of Iowans, the real question remains: why is Iowa first? Why do the opinions of Iowans matter so much more than those of anyone else? Why is New Hampshire second?
It's not just a case of using a smaller battleground so that candidates don't have to spend as much money. It's a case of being able to choose from among all the candidates. Iowan Republicans will vote next week for their choice among eight candidates. By the time New Hampshire votes, it may be down to seven or six. When the Republicans in the last states in the process get to vote, it'll probably be a choice of only two or three. And when the general election rolls around in November, only on Republican will be on the ballot.
I'm not begrudging any club its right to support only one of its members (thus concentrating the club's efforts and funds behind one, rather than splitting its own vote). But the club (in this case, the Republican party) is asking for all of us taxpayers to pay for its decision-making mechanism, to choose that one member. I'm not a Republican; I don't vote in the Republican primary, but my tax dollars go to pay for the election in the Republican party so they can choose one of the eight to support. (Same case with the Democrats, but since they have an incumbent president this time around, their primaries are nearly meaningless.) But if I were a member of the party (either party), living in a late-primary state, I'd be pretty upset that my fellows living in Iowa have a much bigger, and more important, choice.
If they want me to keep paying for it, I say forget the primaries, and let them all run in the general election, so I can choose from amongst them all (or forget the rigmarole of primaries, and just let the party elders make their choices at the convention, as they'd done throughout the 1800s and well into the 1900s). But if you insist on primaries, regardless of who pays for them, do you people in Utah (the last primary this year, on 26 June) or California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota (on 5 June) really feel you have as big or important a choice as the people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?
It's not just a case of using a smaller battleground so that candidates don't have to spend as much money. It's a case of being able to choose from among all the candidates. Iowan Republicans will vote next week for their choice among eight candidates. By the time New Hampshire votes, it may be down to seven or six. When the Republicans in the last states in the process get to vote, it'll probably be a choice of only two or three. And when the general election rolls around in November, only on Republican will be on the ballot.
I'm not begrudging any club its right to support only one of its members (thus concentrating the club's efforts and funds behind one, rather than splitting its own vote). But the club (in this case, the Republican party) is asking for all of us taxpayers to pay for its decision-making mechanism, to choose that one member. I'm not a Republican; I don't vote in the Republican primary, but my tax dollars go to pay for the election in the Republican party so they can choose one of the eight to support. (Same case with the Democrats, but since they have an incumbent president this time around, their primaries are nearly meaningless.) But if I were a member of the party (either party), living in a late-primary state, I'd be pretty upset that my fellows living in Iowa have a much bigger, and more important, choice.
If they want me to keep paying for it, I say forget the primaries, and let them all run in the general election, so I can choose from amongst them all (or forget the rigmarole of primaries, and just let the party elders make their choices at the convention, as they'd done throughout the 1800s and well into the 1900s). But if you insist on primaries, regardless of who pays for them, do you people in Utah (the last primary this year, on 26 June) or California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota (on 5 June) really feel you have as big or important a choice as the people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?