Media Has Too Much Time on its Hands This Primary Season. Solution: Have a Shorter Primary Cycle.

The primaries are stupid.

 

Don’t get me wrong – as an avid student of politics, I love the debates, the back and forth battles, and the daily polls that are often associated with the primary season. Like a sports fan would follow the progress and events surrounding his favorite team, I follow the success, failures, and goof-ups of my favorite (and least favorite) candidates.

 

However, the presidential primary system is broken. First off, it places too much emphasis on a few early states, and very little on the majority. This results in many states pushing themselves to the front of the primary calendar, resulting in a much earlier start to the primary season than ever before, and thus a very, very, very long primary. With so much time to cover events, and in an effort to bring the most (controversial) primary coverage to their readers, many media outlets have resorted to being nothing more than political tabloids. From the breaking news about John Edward’s $400 haircut, to the very newsworthy article from the Washington Post highlighting Hillary Clinton’s suit dipping “into new neckline territory”, the media’s obsession with the unimportant has deviated interest from the issues in this campaign, and perhaps more importantly, from other pressing domestic themes.

 

Just as they say, “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” we must realize that when something is broken, it must be fixed. A broken primary system needs to be fixed. Let me propose two ways that we can make this happen.

 

A very popular idea exists in the national primary system, in which every state holds a primary on the same day, and the winner of that day’s popular vote is declared each party’s nominee. Under this system, everyone gets an equal vote. In addition, a national primary would ultimately cost the taxpayers less money, as candidates will no longer have to buy as much airtime and pay as many travel expenses in every primary state. The prospect of not watching forty-some different debates on CNN and MSNBC will give me back the time needed to study for that Ec Midterm or write that Gov paper. Even though a national primary looks good on paper, in effect it may not be any better than the status quo. For example, like on Super Tuesday, the candidates will tend to flock to the big states, possibly ignoring many of the states that have gained prominence from their earlier primary date. Fundraising for a one day primary will prove especially difficult for lesser-known candidates, making it virtually impossible to get the recognition they need to win their party’s nomination, as compared to the current system in which momentum the demographics of a primary state play such crucial roles. There also lies the possibility of a much earlier starting date in order to reach every state in the Union, thus taking us nowhere in regards to my earlier complaints concerning the media’s idle time. And even if there isn’t an earlier starting date, the voters take a chance of not making a very informed decision, for the winner in a national primary will most likely be the man or woman carrying the momentum that week, for better or worse.  

 

I personally like the idea of having four “Super Tuesdays” in a given primary cycle. The idea has been thrown around before of having “regional primaries” in a three to four month period. For example, there would be a primary in the South, a primary on the East Coast, and so on. However, this doesn’t solve the problem of unfairly giving some states greater importance than others and could possibly end up deadlocking candidates. Imagine if the “southern primary” were held first – Obama and Huckabee would most likely emerge victorious. From there, they would either run with huge momentum or get stopped in the next series of primaries in which another candidate would be more favored to win. What I would propose is having, say four Tuesdays, separated by three weeks of campaigning in which a mix of states, of varying ideological and geographical backgrounds vote. One such blocking could consist of states like Alaska, New Hampshire, Idaho, Texas, South Carolina, Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Illinois, and New Mexico. These four blocks of states would rotate as to the order in which they vote. This proposed block above may vote second in 2008, but would vote first in 2012. The fact that there isn’t just one day for voting will guarantee that the person nominated for their party isn’t nominated based off a whim. It will also give political junkies everywhere the chance to see multiple debates, and multiple days of election coverage, while allowing the rest of us the consolation of knowing that the media doesn’t have too much time on its hands, thus keeping the election coverage at least more relevant, and knowing that soon the focus will shift back to other, for some, more important news. I like to think that this system is most fair, keeping elements of the old primary system that are considered favorable, while moving towards a shorter primary season. This system still allows every state to have a say, while highlighting states that wouldn’t usually be considered important, in a rotating basis, so that every state has a chance to be crucial at one point or other. Take for example, Iowa. Right now it’s considered to unfairly be first in the nation – the argument exists that other states should enjoy this boon. Under the “Four Super Tuesdays Plan”, Iowa would be among the first in the nation every four elections, allowing for other states to take the lead in other years. California and New York will never really lose their importance. Even at the end of the calendar, their influence will be significant, allowing for an election that, while shorter, lasts to the very end. By giving every small state a chance to shine first, and always having a big state towards the end of the season, the primaries are guaranteed to be more balanced and more involved to the very end.

 

Regardless of their being re-worked or not, I will always pay close attention to the presidential primaries, but for those of us who don’t want to hear about Clinton, McCain and Obama 24/7, and would like to get through the news frenzy of a long primary cycle in a faster, more fair manner, change is needed.

---

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Kimmel: No More Primaries