When a man is so wrong about ice cream, who could pay attention to what he says about politics?
But before tearing down the present (unjust and undemocratic) party primary system, I’d like to offer an alternative: Group the several states into five ten-state cohorts (just distribute DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, et al, among them as you like…I care not). Have five party primary dates. Rotate which states get to go first. Balance the groups as well as you can in selecting them. I could live with that. I’m not even saying that this is the best way—I’m saying that EVEN I can imagine a better arrangement in five minutes of halfway-serious thinking; therefore, I dare to hope that the entire nation, motivated to improve our lot, could come up with something far superior.
Dave Miller has compared the present system to the use of a pastor search committee to select a pastor. That analogy would be true if in your church…
- Nobody got to elect the search committee. Rather, the people who lived in a certain neighborhood comprised the permanent search committee to whom was awarded the eternal privilege of selecting every pastoral candidate for the church into perpetuity.
- All of the information about all of the candidates was presented to the entire congregation from the very beginning of the process, such that the search committee actually did not do for the church the work of sorting through the candidates. Rather, everyone receives all of the information, everyone sorts through the candidates, and everyone forms opinions about the candidates. It’s just that, unless you live in the right neighborhood and happen to be on the search committee, your opinions are ignored.
- And to top it all off, the search committee’s record ain’t all that stellar.
So, try THAT system out at your church. Let me know how it works out for you.
I don’t find Mr. Miller’s arguments about the advantages of the present system to be very persuasive. It’s not that there aren’t good things accomplished in the present system; it’s simply that the cost (the relegation of most of the country to insignificance in the primary process) is far greater than these subtle nuances of benefit that Dave has teased out of the present arrangement, and furthermore, that the benefits are achievable through other means.
Want to represent a cross-section of the country? Let’s try this: Involve a cross-section of the actual country. What’s missing from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada? Cities, for example. Now, I’m MISTER RURAL. I can still quote large portions of the FFA Creed. But we ought not to ignore the fact that our rural areas are emptying out of population into our cities. I think that trend might reverse itself sometime soon, but it is simply unjust to exclude all of urban America from the process of selecting presidential candidates.
Las Vegas, NV, is the largest city in these primary states. It is twenty-ninth in the list of US cities ranked by population. Twenty-ninth! After that comes Henderson, NV (seventy-first!); Reno, NV (eighty-ninth!); and North Las Vegas, NV (ninety-fourth!). Three of the four states don’t have a single city in the top one hundred US cities by population (source).
Dave worries that, if the primary system were to change, “There would be virtually no personal contact between candidates and the people, just big events, media events, etc.”
Well, welcome to OUR world, Mr. Miller. Live in Arkansas, Montana, Texas, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Alabama, or Arizona for a while. Guess how much personal contact you get with candidates in—oh, I don’t know—everywhere but Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada? Your personal contact with candidates doesn’t do bupkis for me nor for the rest of the nation. What would the candidates do? They’d probably campaign in the cities. But since the cities are distributed across the surface map of the nation, even though I don’t live in a city, I could drive to one and hear a candidate in person if I so desired. They wouldn’t have come to Jonesboro, AR, but they’d have come to Memphis. They wouldn’t have come to Farmersville, TX, but they’d have come to Dallas. You live in Podunk, Iowa? They’d probably come to Des Moines. They’d likely come to Minneapolis. At the very worst, you’re looking at a trip to Chicago. I, on the other hand, face a twelve-hour drive to Iowa to avail myself of the same opportunity. That’s my closest, best option for “personal contact with candidates.”
Dave further worries about what would happen to small “no-name candidates” if the primary system were to change. I retort, what happens to them now, under your system? Here are the Presidencies of my lifetime:
| Election Year | Winner |
|---|---|
| 1972 | Richard M. Nixon |
| 1976 | Jimmy Carter |
| 1980 | Ronaldus Magnus (pbuh) |
| 1984 | The Gipper |
| 1988 | George Bush |
| 1992 | Bill Clinton |
| 1996 | Bill Clinton |
| 2000 | George W. Bush |
| 2004 | George W. Bush |
| 2008 | Barack Obama |
| 2012 | Barack Obama |
So, show me one no-name candidate our present primary system has given us in all of this time. Of course, these are just the winning candidates, so show me the nominees from the losing parties for all of this time who were “small”, “no-name candidates.” There’s not one—not one!—out of my entire lifetime.
“But if it weren’t for Iowa, the prospects for small candidates would be even WORSE!” Worse than zero? This system has propelled zero small, no-name candidates into the general election in nearly half a century. No…I’m sorry…Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada do absolutely nothing for small, no-name candidates.
The great irony here is that Dave Miller and I are in an online debate in which Dave is taking the position that kissing a pig at the Iowa State Fair is the way forward for small, obscure candidates. It’s ironic because Dave and I have both gotten to know and be known by a lot of people through the Southern Baptist Convention conspicuously without setting up headquarters in Georgia and Tennessee. People have gotten to know us and have gotten to know what we believe because of the ways that the Internet has shrunk our world. Let’s face it: Small, obscure candidates don’t have much of a shot, but what shot they do have boils down to making their case on TV, at the debates, and on the Internet. That’s not easy (nor should it be), but it stands just as much chance for success as does a spate of regular breakfast stops at some popular Sioux City eatery.
Conclusion
Let’s keep a party primary system. Let’s keep both small and large states in the mix. Let’s keep a primary season spread out beyond one massive primary election date, I guess. But if this role of getting to pick who runs for president is a burden, it ought to be shared. If it is a blessing, it ought to be passed around. Let’s dethrone Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Let’s get back to letting our whole country participate in our democracy.
I’m rubber and you are glue…oh, never mind.
I’m not real proud of this, because I consider him our worst president ever, but it was Iowa that gave Obama the chance to build a following against Hillary.
And we give evangelical – friendly candidates a boost, though they usually flame out and lose to the establishment candidate.
Your angst over the 4 states privilege dooms anyone but the big money, establishment candidate from having much of a chance, unless he can somehow score a few debate points.
It will be all about big money and stupid debates like the one last night.
I think your cure is worse than the disease. If I understand it, it boils down to – someone else gets something you don’t. So take personal access away from everyone.
I think this system, with its flaws, is better than allowing national networks, big money donors, and establishment party politicians to have all the power, which is precisely what your system would do
How so? It looks to me much like your system, except your state doesn’t get to be one of the privileged states every time.
Also, in a process that we tout as somewhat democratic, “[a very select group of a few people] gets something [viz, voting rights] that [a group including the vast preponderance of the electorate] doesn’t” amounts to a pretty strong and relevant critique.
My preference for the current system is that it designates a few small states as a microcosm of the USA, and give candidates a smaller field on which to do battle. Whether IA, NH, SC, and NV qualify as a microcosm is a legitimate question.
But in Iowa, the candidates can engage in a different form of political campaign than just political ads and debates. Candidates here will show up at events with 10 to 15 people and spend some time. It’s a qualitatively different type of thing. I think it has value, allowing candidates like Huckabee in 2008 a chance to step up.
That’s not the point of dispute between us. To say “it has value” is all well and good. I’m not disputing the value that you say it has.
Here’s the only way the discussion moves forward:
1. You dispute that the cost exists: “No, Bart, you actually get just as much of a say in who is the eventual GOP nominee as I do.” Or…
2. Having listed out benefits, you make some sort of a case for why those benefits outweigh the costs. “Yes, Bart, it’s true that you are relegated to virtual irrelevance in the presidential primaries, but it’s worth it to you, and here’s how I arrive at that conclusion.” I’ve listed out these benefits, now I’m going to show you how I’ve weighed out the significance of those benefits in such a way as to make them more important than your utter disenfranchisement.”
A final comment: The problem with your Obama example is not that Obama turned out to be a horrific president, but that he could hardly be considered “small” or “no-name” before his showing in Iowa. He was a senator. He had delivered a key address at the preceding DNC meeting. He was expected to run for president and to do well.
This is no longer “Iowa lets unknown, small candidates have a shot.” Your argument amounts to: “Political fortunes turn as campaigns and election seasons unfold.”
To which I reply: Yes. And that’s nothing magic about Iowa; that’s just what happens in elections, however you may hold them.
Iowa/NH and the small states give candidates a chance. Obama was way behind and worked Iowa hard. Hillary was assumed the nominee until he took Iowa. Shook things up.
I would guess that the establishment favorite wins under your system. Might have been better in that case. Hillary might have lost the general election.
Oh, and supporting the present political primary system is like supporting beer-swilling Calvinists who cuss in their sermons, fire missionaries, marry men to one another, and appoint boards of elders while saluting the Confederate flag.
There you go, Dave. That’ll get you some comments.
Nerd.
Lol!!!
You forgot to add ” … Cuss during sermons and don’t do altar calls, ….
That definitely makes you feel the Bern…..
Which of the winners led “wire to wire?” (Second term does not count–for obvious reasons.) And the “value” of the candidates having to get out and “press the flesh” seems to me to be more for the candidate than for the person whose flesh got pressed.
Just because the candidate is the “establishment’s choice” does not mean that the party or the nation did bad. Are you sure that you want a “dark horse” to get the nomination. (Well, this time you may want a dark horse to win–in both parties.) Additionally, there was also a person who got nominated but lost the election. You should look at them too if you are working at improving the system. We have modified the system over the last years with the intent of taking the nomination out of the convention and giving it to “the people.” But have we really changed the person who gets the nomination. It does not seem to me that we have.
The first convention that I remember listening to on the radio was when Eisenhower was nominated. I listened to them with great interest for quite a while after that. I listen/watch with less interest now that we are generally assured of the outcome.
For some time it has seemed to me that George H. W. Bush was the best qualified candidate that we had for the office of president in all this time and really did a good job–especially on Iraq. I still don’t think that he should have lost to Mr. Clinton. It was a “lack of optimism” (hope?) that seemed to get him in 1992–and the “no new taxes” thing which was an error on his part. Just think of the difference that would have made in the run of presidents that we have had. Things would have gotten better (just like they did for Mr. Clinton), an R would have been elected in 1996 (likely for two terms since the economy was doing pretty well in 2000). It would have been at least 2004 before there would have been any probability of a D getting elected. And maybe that D would have been stuck with the economic downturn. I get “vague” about here. 🙂
Things would certainly have been different.
Just some random thoughts about this.
1) I hate the current system, more because it gets earlier each year (though the primaries themselves have pretty settled in at starting in January), but also because many (in some years, most) states are rendered irrelevant. I think the two are related, the earliness and spread out primaries render late primaries irrelevant.
2) I don’t have a better system, other than maybe compressing the schedule and pushing it closer to the convention.
3) I never have nor do I expect to cast a vote that will impact who is elected president. In Mississippi when the primaries have been held, the candidates have always had the delegates needed to be nominated, and as red as we are there is no question who the electoral votes would go to in the general election. I still vote, however, because I believe the vote is consequential giving a voice to not only who the people ultimately choose as president, but the strength of the people behind him.
4) Concerning the current article, it is precisely what Bart notes is missing in the early states which is why they are early. States determine their own primary dates. Iowa, NH, SC, and Nevada looked around and said, “As small as we are, no one will ever pay attention to us unless we do something to force them to. Let’s be the first primaries so that the politicians at least pay some attention to us.” Truthfully, due primarily to the media, too much attention is probably paid to them, but they are right in that if the system is changed, even in some rotational form, the candidates will only focus on the large states. If Texas, Iowa, Maine, Idaho, and Alabama held their elections on the same day who would the media focus attention on? Where would the candidates focus their campaigns? What about a few weeks later if New Hampshire, California, Indiana, Alabama, and New Mexico held theirs together? Or even a little later if South Carolina, Nebraska, New York, Colorado, and Montana held theirs together?