Spring Break
DAVID LITVAK: Primary season, over before it begins
by David Litvak
Columnists | 1/15/08
Posted online at 12:03 AM EST on 1/15/08
/ Last updated at 7:23 PM EST on 1/15/08
There is a special magic to the thought of participating in my first presidential election. The novelty of political efficacy is still quite fresh for me, and over these past few months, I've relished the ongoing drama of the campaigns, of the debates and of the calls for change, strength or hope. I look forward to casting my vote in the California primary Feb, 5.
Then again, perhaps I've romanticized the whole process. By the time this article goes to print, the field of viable candidates for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations will have narrowed considerably, and the front-runners will likely be well on their way to securing their nominations-some seven months before the nominating conventions in late August and early September. It used to take months for the primaries to nail down the nominees for the presidency; in 1968, doubt about the Democratic nomination persisted all the way to the convention itself. But in 2004, Sen. John Kerry had essentially locked down the nomination by the middle of February. This trend is largely the result of individual states jockeying for political power by moving their primaries up ahead of those of other states, the logic being that if your primary comes first you can affect the results of the primaries that follow.
In the mad rush to be first in the nation, the primaries have evolved into an unfair mess that disenfranchises voters in later states and robs us all of the opportunities provided by a longer primary season.
The Iowa caucus came this year on Jan. 3, and the New Hampshire primary on the 8th; the primaries are so early and so compacted together that it is conceivable that a candidate could ride a victory in a single state to victories on "Super Duper Tuesday" -when 24 states, including California, will hold their primaries --and thus to the party nomination. The natural momentum that a candidate develops over the course of a campaign is expected, but primary-hopping from victory to victory is not in the spirit of the contest. A single loss by any candidate can derail his entire campaign because he is not able to recover in time for the next primary contest. Furthermore, a prolonged primary season gives voters the opportunity to hear more from the candidates vying for the nomination before coming to a decision, an important vetting process. Voters in states with later primaries have no real say because the challengers to the party front-runner have, by this point, either dropped out or lost any real chance of attaining the nomination.
Then again, perhaps I've romanticized the whole process. By the time this article goes to print, the field of viable candidates for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations will have narrowed considerably, and the front-runners will likely be well on their way to securing their nominations-some seven months before the nominating conventions in late August and early September. It used to take months for the primaries to nail down the nominees for the presidency; in 1968, doubt about the Democratic nomination persisted all the way to the convention itself. But in 2004, Sen. John Kerry had essentially locked down the nomination by the middle of February. This trend is largely the result of individual states jockeying for political power by moving their primaries up ahead of those of other states, the logic being that if your primary comes first you can affect the results of the primaries that follow.
In the mad rush to be first in the nation, the primaries have evolved into an unfair mess that disenfranchises voters in later states and robs us all of the opportunities provided by a longer primary season.
The Iowa caucus came this year on Jan. 3, and the New Hampshire primary on the 8th; the primaries are so early and so compacted together that it is conceivable that a candidate could ride a victory in a single state to victories on "Super Duper Tuesday" -when 24 states, including California, will hold their primaries --and thus to the party nomination. The natural momentum that a candidate develops over the course of a campaign is expected, but primary-hopping from victory to victory is not in the spirit of the contest. A single loss by any candidate can derail his entire campaign because he is not able to recover in time for the next primary contest. Furthermore, a prolonged primary season gives voters the opportunity to hear more from the candidates vying for the nomination before coming to a decision, an important vetting process. Voters in states with later primaries have no real say because the challengers to the party front-runner have, by this point, either dropped out or lost any real chance of attaining the nomination.
Be the first to comment on this story