Ever since the Iowa caucuses and the outcomes of the next ten days of primaries, I’ve been wondering why the system of voting for the primaries is the way it is. I know there’s been a trend of many other states moving their dates forward, trying to be one of the ‘influential’ states and there are states that complain about not getting enough attention.
My questions is: Why do any of the states get to vote before others? How come we don’t all vote on the same day across all states like we do for the Presidential election. I’m not bothered that states like Iowa and New Hampshire get so much political attention. I am much more upset about how strongly they affect the race itself. There were nine presidential candidates before the Iowa caucuses. On the day Jake got to vote in California, we were down to four. I feel that no one or two or seven states should have enough power to change the entire race before the other 43 have even had a chance to participate.
If all states voted on the same day, I am confident the results could have been different. Maybe we wouldn’t even have Kerry as the candidate. Dean would have never made that speech (or at least it would have been too late to have an effect), Clark would have been an option. I feel that if the primaries were treated like a serious, country-wide election, they should be all on the same day and shouldn’t have as much local concentration as they do. The election is not about a candidate who is serving Iowa or Alaska or Alabama. This is a presidential candidate. This person will serve the entire country. This person needs to concentrate on the whole country and the whole country should get the option of voting for the candidate they want in the White House.
It isn’t fair that the early states got to choose between nine and others didn’t. In my eyes, this affects the entire balance of the election. What about all those people who voted for Kerry or Lieberman, would they have voted for someone else if the two weren’t a choice. Of course, they would have. Would the results have been different? Maybe or maybe not.
The fact is, we will never know.
Good point.
In all honesty, my .02 is that no matter what happens, Bush will have a stupid trick up his sleeve. Politics = funny issues. Let’s see how they turn out.
I’ve sent a longish answer giving the historical reasons to you by email. One on hand, it’s comforting to know that there’s a reason for this, and it wasn’t pulled out of somebody’s ass. But, on the other hand, it makes correcting these (and other) imbalances really hard.
I’m not sure of the reasons, but I’m working with some people to actively attempt to change it. My state (Pennsylvania) hasn’t had a say in either party’s choice for president since 1964. That’s unconscionable, IMO.
Y’all need the Canadian way!