Monday
Mar102008
Time for a National Primary Day?
Before 2000 if anyone were asked what a chad was, they would most likely answer that "chad" was the name of an actor on a show about doctors or the guy next door that took their daughter to the homecoming. After Florida, most people became aware of hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads. This great revelation was due to the closeness of the presidential race. Chads have been around for as long as there have been punch cards. It took a close race to bring them onto the American forefront of debate.
Now, the hotly contested Democrat primary is making delegate, super delegate, and caucuses the current question of the day. But as the average, nonpolitical American receives the explanation, they really, for the most part, just cannot digest it. Now, talk about the delegates from Iowa possibly switching support at the convention to another candidate has definitely added more confusion to the already baffling process.
Can one imagine if the general election were held in stages? First, two small states vote between the candidates, then on to super Tuesday, and a three month general election process? A "none of the above" category would likely be the desire of a weary public.
Without a one-day, national primary many candidates do not stand a chance of being the national longshot favorite. Depending on the previous state's votes, candidates are quickly ruled out. Many Americans, the vast majority, would welcome a serious debate on a national primary day. When this has been discussed in the past, shrieks of home rule, state's rights are uttered to really protect the political status quo of power versus fairness. After all, if a national primary day became reality, the deal-cutting, favor-garnishing system for the party faithful would be cast aside—what a shame that would be. Confusion is much better than a party boss being forced to give up using the leverage of their state's delegates, super delegates, and caucuses for personal IOUs
The idea merits discussion; the average citizen deserves to exert the power of the vote, not an outdated system of power brokering politics.
Now, the hotly contested Democrat primary is making delegate, super delegate, and caucuses the current question of the day. But as the average, nonpolitical American receives the explanation, they really, for the most part, just cannot digest it. Now, talk about the delegates from Iowa possibly switching support at the convention to another candidate has definitely added more confusion to the already baffling process.
Can one imagine if the general election were held in stages? First, two small states vote between the candidates, then on to super Tuesday, and a three month general election process? A "none of the above" category would likely be the desire of a weary public.
Without a one-day, national primary many candidates do not stand a chance of being the national longshot favorite. Depending on the previous state's votes, candidates are quickly ruled out. Many Americans, the vast majority, would welcome a serious debate on a national primary day. When this has been discussed in the past, shrieks of home rule, state's rights are uttered to really protect the political status quo of power versus fairness. After all, if a national primary day became reality, the deal-cutting, favor-garnishing system for the party faithful would be cast aside—what a shame that would be. Confusion is much better than a party boss being forced to give up using the leverage of their state's delegates, super delegates, and caucuses for personal IOUs
The idea merits discussion; the average citizen deserves to exert the power of the vote, not an outdated system of power brokering politics.
tagged 
election, primaries in News/Commentary
election, primaries in News/Commentary
Reader Comments