Towards a Vermont primary
Have you noticed that a host of states, some major, some minor, are falling over themselves trying to ensure they hold onto, or in other cases latch onto, the perceived gold from being one of the early states to host a presidential primary? It won't be long before the first primary, or state caucus, a la Iowa, is held around Christmas of the preceding year before an election. Santa may indeed be coming to town, but he'll be wearing a three piece suit or just the right earth toned khakis and sporting an expensive haircut. The beard too, will have to go, big guy.
For years, the rhythmn of a presidential election was guided by New Hampshire's primary in February, followed by a succession of other state primaries in a host of large and small states. California's primary, in June, was still a big factor. There was time for a candidate to test the waters and survive for the long haul.
Then came Super Tuesdays, and the Iowa caucus in January, and megabucks in fundraising, to the absurd situation we are in now — the truly endless campaign. The major candidates have been talking themselves hoarse for months, but many have — probably wisely — avoided saying anything specific about what they would actually do if elected President.
So, now we have the astonishing spectacle of New Hampshire feeling left behind because Iowa has leapfrogged them in the Presidential primary sweepstakes, and by state law, must hold its primary at least a week before any other state does. But Michigan, a large industrial state with a diverse population that is far more representative of the nation as a whole, wants to get in on all that primary mania, specifically with an eye towards seeing candidate money flowing into the state. It wants to re-schedule its primary from Feb. 9 to Jan. 15, a full week before New Hampshire's one on Jan. 22. So now New Hampshire wants to move its up to Jan. 8.
Meanwhile, Iowa has a state law on its books that mandates that its caucus must be held at least eight days before any other contest. That takes us into the final week of December, 2007.
Enter Vermont. If New Hampshire feels empowered to impose its will on the U.S. electorate nearly 11 months before the actual election, why shouldn't Vermont create a caucus, or hold a primary, during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day? Aside from the ski areas, there's not much happening here that week, and it would provide a final end of year boost for the economy, especially for media businesses, and all other industries that have any kind of tie-in to traditional Vermont economic activities — think maple syrup, dairy farms and yes, even ski areas. Picture Hillary and Obama colliding at the chairlift and holding an impromptu debate — global warming, anyone?
But seriously, this is getting insane. We're going in the opposite direction of what should be happening, namely, making the election cycle shorter. Soon every state that holds a primary will want to frontload theirs to the point where the two finalists will be decided by Ground Hog Day, if not before. Then we have to endure 10 months of mumbo-jumbo until the November election. The eyes glaze over at the thought.
The election system is broken and needs to be fixed. Granted, this is an unsual election year — we don't have an incumbent officeholder running for re-election and a sitting Vice President who isn't interested in the job (thank God). But still, the fact that this campaign has lasted so long already, with fundraising such a major part of any serious candidates effort, and has so much farther to go, is sad. The only interesting moment to date was the Youtube debate — maybe we could limit candidates just to that type of format. It also begs the question of finding some kind of limit on how much money can be spent by the candidates, but that's an issue for another day.
How we shorten the election cycle to make it something much closer to the British model - which lasts a merciful six or seven weeks — without sacrificing freedom of speech and the demands of democracy — is the next big political science challenge of our generation.
Comments
My political experience goes back to the early '80's when you ran campaigns by working hard and meeting people; generally door to door. Today the process has, much like many other things, gotten out of hand and much more complicated than it need be. If we think that starting the political campaign process real early is a good idea, perhaps we should check in with Sen. John McCain; a man who all but had a lock on his party's nomination for president. He started so early that by a year and a half out from the elections the voters were tired of him.
On second thought, maybe we should have campaigns start two, three, four years out. Then we could really see what we're getting!
Posted by: Robert Stannard | August 27, 2007 06:32 AM
I powerfully disagree with this notion Robert. If I thought we were an educated, informed and politically aware nation, I'd be all over your beliefs like a cop on a donut. Two short months ago, while actively working for the Obama campaign, I encountered a shocking number of Americans who didn't even know who he was. Sadly, we need to bitch-slap our country with information, and what is important to us all. Apathy is the word of the day where Americans are concerned. I consider our drawn-out campaigns like preschool, reading readiness. I don't disagree with your ideas, just the fact that you've overllooked the "BUD" crowd who aren't paying attention to the world around them.
Respectfully,
Jennie
Posted by: Jennie | January 28, 2008 04:32 PM
My appologies....I did not post my comment to the author.
Sincerely,
Jennie
Posted by: Jennie | January 28, 2008 05:34 PM