  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Will the Big States Please Stand Up?Posted on Jan 29, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON —Think of it as California’s revenge. After years of watching as California’s financial heavy hitters were bled dry for campaign contributions that were spent elsewhere, the politicians of the nation’s largest state have decided to give its voters a say in selecting the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees. And as befits a place that helped give birth to the Goldwater Right, the New Left, the counterculture, environmentalism, modern libertarianism and the tax revolt, California doesn’t mind if it throws an already flawed presidential nominating system into chaos. Fearing that California will big-foot its way into dominance by moving its primary to Feb. 5, 2008, Illinois, Florida and New Jersey are maneuvering to do exactly the same thing. Thus would this diverse group of states give their voters a say just two weeks after the New Hampshire primary, three weeks after the Iowa caucuses, and also close to the contests in Nevada and South Carolina, which the Democrats have moved up in their order of battle. There is a lot of hand-wringing about how the most open election since 1928 and the most important in many, many years—for once, that is not an exaggeration—will now be held hostage to the whims of big states, big fundraisers, big consultants and, as the first President Bush described momentum, Big Mo. The money part could be ameliorated if Congress were only willing to update a public financing system that is several election cycles behind the realities of politics. Democrats in Congress who tout their populist and reform credentials while decrying the influence of wealthy interests should be moving with dispatch to do so. As for the rest of the difficulties, there is another description of the supposed chaos: a rational response by political actors in a federal system doing their very best—given the incentives in place—to serve the interests of the voters in their respective states. What should surprise us is that the big states did not move years ago to enhance their role in picking the nominees. California was once a giant in the process. In the 1964 Republican primary, Barry Goldwater narrowly defeated Nelson Rockefeller and set the GOP on the rightward course it has pursued since. In 1972, California Democrats voted for George McGovern over Hubert Humphrey, confirming the importance of the antiwar forces in the party. Since then, California’s influence has been exercised largely by the people who can afford the fundraising parties at mansions in and around Los Angeles and San Francisco. Moreover, the bulk of the states talking about moving their primaries forward promise to enhance the influence of two groups largely left out of the current process: the voters in big cities, and the vast group of suburban and exurban citizens so decisive to the outcomes of general elections. Don’t get me wrong: I share the devotion to Iowa and New Hampshire’s conscientious voters that is a requirement for entry into the guild of political writers. I love watching candidates sit down with small groups of voters in living rooms in Epping, N.H., or Altoona, Iowa, and confront agonizingly thoughtful and detailed questions about healthcare policy or nuclear proliferation or whatever. And I love visiting both states, warm and welcoming as they are, with the excuse that I’m working. But it’s time the method we use in selecting nominees bear some resemblance to how we elect them. It’s time the polyglot cities and the great exurban tracts gain a voice commensurate with their importance to the nation. And it’s time that our candidates get tested early by broader electorates. Was it really good for the country that South Carolina’s Republicans put an effective end to the battle between George W. Bush and John McCain so early in 2000, on Feb. 19 to be exact? Was it helpful that the Democratic battle between Al Gore and Bill Bradley that same year effectively ended after New Hampshire voted on Feb. 1, or that John Kerry wasn’t tested harder in more places after his Jan. 27, 2004, victory there? The revolt of the big states may not slow down the process, and might even enhance the importance of the outcomes in Iowa, New Hampshire and the two other early states. But by forcing themselves forward, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida (and who knows who else?) will definitely let many more voters, and many more kinds of voters, in on a very important choice. The legislatures in those states should ignore the complaints and let their people join the action. E.J. Dionne Jr.’s e-mail address is postchat(at symbol)aol.com. Copyright 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Christianists on the March Next item: Yes, I'm Listening to Kerry Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
AIDS and the Myth of the Oversexed Negro
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Skruff, February 2, 2007 at 2:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Little ole Maine, with about 1 million citizens gave America Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohen, George Mitchell and a hell of a place to take a summer vacation.
In order not to be used as a nuclear dump, a place to house prisons, or a colony of New York, each state needs two senators to protect the interests of all citizens. The only problem with two senators is in figuring electorical college votes. I would be happy to accept one Senator IF everystate got one senator.
I would also like to see the US move a step closer to “democracy” and eliminate the EC.
Report thisBy ann Madigan, February 2, 2007 at 9:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ref: Comment 50522 by Kathryn 1/30, I was just wondering what others thought about the two senators per state rule. It doesn’t reflect population figures and was decided by the Founders without a crystal ball. Still, it may be the best system. WHAT DO YOU THINK, E. J. DIONNE? OTHERS?
Report thisBy Emil Lawton, January 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A simple but ,I think , cogent argument for California to get in early is the case of Iowa and ethanol or commonly alcohol. Because Iowa is a corn growing state, politicians haave fallen over trying to promise that they are for alcohol in gasoline, especially gasohol.
Report thisHowever, gasohol doesn none of the things it is supposed to do. It does not burn cleaner than or California formulated gasoline as proven by tests by the California Air Resourses Board. It displaces a miniscual amount of petroleum products, is a nasty smog former, costs a bundle and is a severe penalty on California motorists because of its his cost.
If they had to get California votes, then those who would force alcohol on California would be seen truely as an enemy of our environment and economy.
By Dan Noel, January 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The concept that primaries need to start in Iowa and New Hampshire is simply stupid.
Of course, this article leaves unanswered the question as to why any states should vote before others.
Maybe a more intelligent way of doing primaries would be by rotating the states that would vote first, or maybe by holding national primaries with 2 or more turns.
Report thisBy Derek, January 31, 2007 at 2:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“All of the conditions you decry are not what WILL happen, they are what WE ALREADY HAVE!”
No, they will get worse with this plan.
I agree with what eztempo said.
Report thisBy Bob, January 30, 2007 at 8:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s about time. It was getting embarrasing letting all of these small states select our candidates for president. Hopefully California and other big states will do a better job, so candidates like Bush 43 don’t end up being president. What happened to John McCain in South Carolina was dispicable. The Repubicans seem to enjoy sliming real war heroes.
Report thisBy Kathlyn, January 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I like the kind of “chaos” California (and other States that follow suit) creates by moving its primary dates forward.
And reference Comment 50468 ann Madigan on 1/30, the election public financing system should be a top/top priority for Congress. And, yes, for god’s sake, banish the Electoral College derangement
As for the two-senators/state rule, it’s a worthy idea for discussion but I incline to keep it as is—a useful checks and balance system.
Report thisBy Los Angeles Democrat, January 30, 2007 at 1:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Predominantly white, overly religious, relatively small-towned, with almost non-existent gay and lesbian communities - like New Hampshire and Iowa - (especially relative to larger, more industrialized and urbanized states) have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process. I don’t care if the retail politicking is more intimate in these small states. They don’t look or act or believe in the same things as where I live. California needs to be right up there as a decision-making factor. We pay a disproportinate amount of taxes. We want our legitimate say.
Report thisBy Skruff, January 30, 2007 at 12:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Actually, the whole system is out-of-date, and it will take more than a few State political committees to fix it.
New Hampshire made sense as the first primkary state back when it had one unviewable tTV station, and most of the folks worked too hard to watch TV anyway. Granite hard, and practical, once New Hampshireites were a good test for the reaality of candidates.
Unfortunately, now New Hampshire is just a simmering reactionary suburb of Boston, and its people little different from those of Marin County, Westchester County, or Prince Georges County.
Now, if the #1 primary was limited to NH north of the notch, things would be different.
Report thisBy Quy Tran, January 30, 2007 at 11:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stand up with proud and never knee down !
If you guys knee down they still get rid of you anyway.
Report thisBy trantieungoc, January 30, 2007 at 11:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
At anyway and any cost we should get rid of Bush/Cheney’s phamton candidates not only during primaries but all elections, and through this way we can look up with proud.
NO MORE VOTE STUPID EVER !
Report thisBy eztempo, January 30, 2007 at 10:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Front-loading the nomination into one, big-money paroxysm of voting insures that the issues discussed in the primaries are only those that have large, well-funded backing, that the nominee can only be one of the “usual susupects” ordained by media attention two years in advance of the actual election, and that minority opinions (and smaller, “middle America” States) are eliminated from real participation.
Report thisPrimaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Florida—and enough to constitute a substantial majority of delegates—should be MONTHS after a first round of primaries so that any “buyers remorse” occasioned by early victory in February can be corrected in June.
By Mad as Hell, January 30, 2007 at 10:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Comment #50455 by Derek on 1/30 at 5:28 am
This is a terrible idea. It will force candidates that don’t have name recognition or the finanical means to start campaigning more than a year in advance of the primaries just so they can compete in them.
What it will do:
* Lengthen campaigning
* Favor big name candidates
* Favor candidates with big money
* Favor tv and radio campaigning instead of door to door “
Excuse me, but where have you been the last 30 years? The race was WELL on when 1975 ended.
And by 2000 it was TOTALLY clear that you had to declare at the beginning of 1999.
All of the conditions you decry are not what WILL happen, they are what WE ALREADY HAVE!
Report thisBy ann Madigan, January 30, 2007 at 7:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree and not only during the primaries, but in the general election as well, more people should have the opportunity to be counted.
The next step is to abolish the Electoral College which elects our president. It is obsolete and unfair. And while we’re at it, how about a discussion of the “two Senators to a state” rule? Does it make sense for Nebraska or Wyoming to have the same representation in the Senate as California or Ohio?
I sure don’t know, but would appreciate it if E. J. Dionne and other fine minds weighed in on this.
Report thisBy Derek, January 30, 2007 at 5:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is a terrible idea. It will force candidates that don’t have name recognition or the finanical means to start campaigning more than a year in advance of the primaries just so they can compete in them.
What it will do:
Report this* Lengthen campaigning
* Favor big name candidates
* Favor candidates with big money
* Favor tv and radio campaigning instead of door to door
By Mad As Hell, January 30, 2007 at 4:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is this crazy concept that the founding fathers needed to actually pass a Constitution--that small states shouldn’t be dominated by big states.
What makes it crazy is that it makes it possible for a person to LOSE the popular to another person and still become President--like John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush. All were MISERABLE President and only Bush “won” (read: stole) re-election.
Furthermore, the Senate is HORRIBLY biased against the People--if you count popular votes in the Senate, even when the GOP held a 55-45 advantage, you will see that no more than 40% of the total votes went to Republicans, yet they held a 10 seat majority.
Every attempt to reform our Presidential system dies because Montana and South Dakota and Delaware, etc. will NEVER approve a fair, proper direct election of the President. With it, we would NEVER have had the 2000 debacle. Al Gore would be President and we would not be at war in Iraq, in economic crisis, at the mercy of large corporations, or have John Roberts or Samuel Alito on the USSC.
Meanwhile, small states skew our primary race, making the states that power AND FUND the nation powerless. A bunch of rednecks in South Carolina fell for a Karl Rove telephone campaign that asked if they wanted a President who fathered an illegitimate n----. They turned John McCain’s adoption of a beautiful Bengla Deshi girl into a liability by lying about it--and the rednecks bought the lie. I’m no fan of John McCain, but without that Rovian smear, George W. Bush might have faltered as the empty suit he is and never even been nominated.
So I have NO qualms about removing South Carolina from a position of influence in the Presidential race. And I LOVE that idea that we in New Jersey, whose primary vote never counts because it’s all over, will now be in February.
Let ‘em all come HERE and show US what they got!
Report this