The way we choose Presidents is seriously messed up
Okay, seriously, we allow the voters in two small states - Iowa and New Hampshire - are vastly overemphasized by our system. Voters in California - a far more important state than both Iowa and New Hampshire put together - have less influence on the choice. It make no sense. It’s not as if the voters in those two states are any smarter or more informed than the rest of us. In many ways, they’re not even representative of the other 48 states.
It’s also not as if the current system has served us particularly well.
Like our flawed election financing system, that manages to maximize the worst aspects of both public and private financing, our system of choosing candidates manages to maximize the worst aspects of both political parties.
It’s long past time for a serious retooling of our Presidential primary system.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
There’s an old joke in New Hampshire that goes like this: “What do you think of [fill in presidential candidate]? Too soon to tell, I’ve only met him twice!”
Of course, both parties attempted to minimize the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire this time by moving up the primaries. It may have made IA and NH even more decisive, since now there’s almost no time to rescue a campaign that fails in those two states before “Super-Duper Tuesday.”
December 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
…the say we choose our seriously messed up presidents.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
This is why I don’t like polls in the first place. For example, somehow Hillary and Rudy came out as the strongest candidates in the beginning and I think a lot of people don’t want to be losers, so they jump on those two bandwagons. (My voting record, however–candidate or issue wins that I vote for–is downright dismal–maybe 20%.)
I think every state should be required to have its primaries on the same day. What I really wish, though, is that it wouldn’t matter when different states had their primaries because all people would seriously study the issues and make an educated choice.
Fat chance.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Frank is right. A nationwide primary is the only way out of this mess. True, it would probably deprive us of some anti-establishment candidates (e.g. John McCain in 2000, John Dean in 2004). They couldn’t hope to mount a successful primary campaign without that initial boost from New Hampshire. But that’s a slim hope to begin with.
The media need to rediscover objective journalism, too. When somebody tells a lie, call them on it. The WaPo just front-paged a lie about Obama without mentioning it wasn’t true– only that Obama denied it. This afternoon, one of CNN’s “best political team on TV” slipped and referred to “President Hillary Clinton.”
December 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Correction: ..the way we choose… Sheese
I too think that the nation wide primary is a good idea and may possibly be enhanced by infecting it with some of what Nader was proposing (and here I’m not too clear) about having two choices, which would allow a fall-back vote to stave off the squeeker. Help me out here. I just know it could be so much better.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 am
The primaries are deficient but it seems to me the biggest problem is that most of the votes cast in the actually don’t count, including mine. The president is chosen by the so called swing states such as Ohio and Florida. The electoral College is what need reformed the most.