They hit on some majot points that I haven't heard addressed much (see bold). What do you all think?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/12/04/primary_concerns/ Primary concerns
December 4, 2005
DEMOCRATS JOSTLING for advantage as they seek to remake the presidential primary calendar appear headed for changes that will cause their party more harm than good while they only exacerbate the system's worst fault.
As it stands, a 40-member commission named by the Democratic National Committee is likely to recommend next Saturday that as many as four states be added to the primary calendar -- in addition to Iowa and New Hampshire -- to hold presidential primaries or caucuses before the approved ''window" for delegate selection events. The window is already slated to open far too early -- Feb. 5, 2008 -- which means the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary would likely occur in January -- unless the efforts of the ''reformers" push them all the way into 2007.
The stated reasons for the change are essentially two: to add diversity, since Iowa and New Hampshire have small minority populations, and to help build the party in states that have not had much impact on the presidential nominating process.
Unstated reasons include jealousy from states that envy the attention paid Iowa and New Hampshire every four years and sour grapes from the camps of candidates who did poorly in those states in the past.
The problem with the diversity argument is there is no evidence that a louder early voice for minorities would have produced better nominees -- or indeed different nominees -- from those that emerged in recent years. Still, if the Democrats want to add a small Southern state with a large black population, and perhaps a small Southwestern state with a large Hispanic population, after New Hampshire and before the window, that might be a worthwhile experiment.
But the party-building argument falls flat. Adding states before the window would encourage other states to run their contests as early as possible. This would increase the ''front-loading" of the calendar that produces a nominee within a few short weeks after the first votes are cast. The other states are thereby marginalized, the opposite of what this reform movement says it wants.
In addition, a jammed-up calendar would work to the advantage of well-known and well-financed candidates, while lesser-known candidates -- such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter -- would have difficulty breaking through.
It is not too late for the Democratic National Committee to focus on the serious problem of front-loading, possibly by limiting the number of delegates that could be chosen on any date. Such an effort would be far better than undercutting the role of Iowa and New Hampshire, which have proven their effectiveness at compelling real person-to-person retail politics before the candidates become totally isolated and the campaigns hermetically sealed.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
