Stop the mad rush!

On March 16, California threw off the usual presidential primary process by bumping its 2008 nomination date up to February 5, thus creating the possibility for a mega-primary where the candidates for each party are more or less decided by the end of the night. This mad rush to have certain states have the earliest presidential primary is foolish and childish. Previously, the primaries helped to give smaller, lesser known candidates a forum to spread their platform, and even have the possibility to win the primary. Now all that has happened is a front-loaded primary schedule that favors large states, and by consequence, favors the larger, wealthier candidates running for president.

For the past 30 years, which equals approximately the last seven presidential elections, New Hampshire has been the first state to hold a primary (Iowa holds a caucus, if you were wondering, a caucus is less binding than a primary). This tradition was written into New Hampshire state law, and because of it, they have needed to bump their primary back to the current date of January 22. This could stay the same, but with Nevada holding their caucus before New Hampshire, the earliest primary date could end up being January 8. Yes, the presidential primary for 2008 could be held in early January, nine months before the election is even held. You very well could have a child in the time between the first presidential primary, and the final election date.

Florida approved the date change in the House of Representatives in a vote of 115-1, and it is likely to pass through the Senate. The rationale given for moving up the primary date is quite foolish and is just a part on greedy politicians wanting to have even more greedy politicians come into their state. Broward Democratic Chairman Mitch Caesar said, “Because we’re one of the megastates, we think we should be playing a role [in picking the presidential nominees].” Yes, just because your state is large, you should pick the nominees. Not only do you already help decide the President of the United States with your state’s 27 of 538 votes, the 4th-largest amount of all 50 states, you also want to pick your candidate. Gimme, gimme gimme, eh?

Florida is not the only culprit here. California also decided to change their primary date from June to February. At the signing of the bill, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, “Now California is important again in presidential-nominating politics and we will get the respect California deserves.” Sure, you may be important again in presidential-nominating politics, but you were already important in presidential choosing. With 55 of the 270 votes needed to win the Presidency, California already has the overwhelming respect of any serious candidate. In moving their primary day ahead, California has just helped turn the presidential primary process into a “Who has more money to spend on political ads” contest.

The blame does not lie on these two states alone, however. It seems that every large state that plays some of the biggest roles in the Electoral College want to pick their nominee alone. But, look what has happened here. February 5, a mere month after the first tentative primary, will be the day when 16 states hold their primaries. I could have sworn the large states wanted to be more relevant in the primary process. Not anymore, especially when candidates have to be in 15 other states to try to win other primaries. In 2004, the largest primary date was March 2, about a month and a half after Iowa’s caucus, and about a month after New Hampshire’s primary. This was deemed “Super Tuesday,” a date formed decades ago when Southern states wanted to have candidates focus on “Southern” issues. But even on this day there were only 10 states holding primaries.

Having many primaries on one day does not have only one implication. It also means that the official election cycle will be longer, and run through the summer, as opposed to two months after Labor Day. Who hatched this great idea? Oh, that’s right, the large states that already pick the President. Instead of going through this silly nationwide primary, we should just have California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania decide who becomes President, and forget about the smaller, less populous states.

There is a valid reason for keeping the current primary system as it is, even if it has some minor flaws. Now, lesser-known candidates still have a chance to pull ahead of the better-known candidates early on in the smaller state primaries. With this new plan, these lesser-known candidates will be dwarfed in the campaigning done in the 16 other states that have their primaries in February and January. In addition to that, instead of having a mad rush for money by smaller candidates, there will now be a crazy stampede for money and it will take place in larger states. The losers are the people of the United States, who have to settle for famous super-candidates (think Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani), instead of better-qualified, lesser-known candidates. This trampling of smaller states and lesser-known candidates should not happen, and we should do all we can to end it. As the saying goes, “Might does not make right,” and this applies equally for states and the primary process.