Opinion: "Primaries"

By Freddy Gompf · The Mainstream
Published Fubruary 22, 2012

This nation’s system of presidential primaries is a fundamentally flawed process.

The greatest flaw is the way the individual state contests are spread out over the course of six months. The current system allows any candidate who makes a strong showing in a handful of early caucuses and primaries to become the news headliner.  This gives an unbalanced influence to state primaries like in New Hampshire which has a population of 1.3 million and is in no way representative of the entire nation’s make-up. 

Meanwhile, the significantly larger and more diverse populations of California and New York are left either to play “follow the leader” or cast inconsequential votes opposing to those who came earlier.  The result is a nominee chosen by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina while the succeeding contests become a matter of the voters begrudgingly punching the hole next to the most familiar or least objectionable name.

This year’s Republican primary race, however, is shaping up to be a battle that could go all the way to the nominating convention in August.  The first three contests were won by three different candidates: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, respectively.  The Republican base is in no way settled on a particular candidate.

The democratic primaries of 2008 were similarly unconventional.  Barack Obama’s surprise victory in Iowa’s opening contest followed by Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire led to a nomination battle that left no primary uncontested. 

These past two primary seasons are encouraging in that they imply that voters who are showing up are switched on, have something to say and are saying it.  Unfortunately doing so depletes the war chest of the eventual nominee. 

This is the flipside of the problem – when voters show up to steadfastly vote their conscience, they actually create an advantage for the opposition.  In other words, if the Republican primaries go all the way to the convention, Obama will have no specific candidate to run against; therefore, he will have nothing to do until the Republican National Convention, electorally speaking, but raise money and bolster his approval rating. 

The current system, although flawed, was actually designed to take the power out of the hands of party bosses and put it in the hands of the voters.  In 1968 the Democratic National Convention drew widespread outrage when sitting Vice President Hubert Humphries was selected over Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy who was very popular with voters for opposing to the Vietnam War. 

This outrage led to the nationwide adoption of the current system of primaries and caucuses.  The nominating conventions have now become little more than elaborate infomercials for the “lesser of who cares” candidates and their platforms, in addition to being venues for questionable Super-Pacs and lobbyists to shill for special interests.

If we continue holding primary elections, they should be simultaneous in January or February insuring that every voter is choosing the candidate they think is best and not just the one with the most press. 

If no candidate receives a clear majority, then the top contenders should be presented to their party’s nominating convention to be held in the late spring. 

This would insure that the nominees would have ample time to present their case to the electorate while giving the challenger to an incumbent president more than the two months provided by the current system.