ASEVoIS--The Riveting World of Governmental Processes

Yesterday I was reading this commentary on the nature of the primary system here in the US, and it got me to thinking. And thinking leads to bad things, like not-studying for LSATS and to ridiculous blog posts. No thinking for me--as my parents told me, "Lord loves a working man, and don't trust whitey".

Now that I assume that you've actually clicked the above link to see what the article proposed, I can make my point without going through a pointless introduction. The idea of a national primary seems like a good idea on its face (for the LatinFolk out there, that's prima facie), but is in practice not a very good idea. It's actually a retarded idea, and gives electoral reform a bad name. Seriously, electoral reform is embarrassed to be mentioned in the same paragraph as this concept.


The idea of the national primary seems to solve the idea of allowing everyone a voice to participate in the nominating process. However, the opposite effect would in fact occur, as the focus of the campaigns would then revolve solely around the delegate-rich states (NY and Cali for the Dems, Texas for the Reps), and leaving smaller states with no attention. Minorities would also get the shaft--there's a reason why South Carolina and Nevada have primaries at the beginning of the schedule, and that's so their issues would get heard.

Which leads to my point that the current process serves as a good representative of the overlooked states. Iowa represents the Midwest (derisively referred to as "flyover country), while New Hampshire covers small-town America. As veterans of the political process, these states are also filled with savvy voters, who are used to poring over candidates and studying the issues instead of just regurgitating force-fed infocrap from the national networks.


The other benefit of having these small states early in the process is that it allows more non-mainstream candidates to have a viable campaign. These are small media markets, so it doesn't take a massive warchest to be able to just stay afloat in the polls in these states. Instead of relying solely on name-recognition and media pimping, campaigns have to be more candid with their answers and more engaged in the actual process. This is why you can have Hildog leading polls nationally, but not doing as well in the early states--the voters in these early states have gotten a more in-depth look at each of these candidates instead of relying on broad assumptions. This may especially work in favor of Democrats, because Hillary would be the absolute worst candidate for the party to nominate (based on the potential of the Republican Attack Machine and her ability to rally the base to support the GOP).

Small states also benefit from personal attention. What is especially true in New Hampshire is that candidates have the opportunity to visit with virtually every eligible voter, and listen to his/her concerns and open themselves up to their questions. This is in direct contrast to the large stump speeches that one would find in the large metropolitan cities that you would otherwise have. As a result, you have an overall more connective democratic experience.

Sorry to bore you with this stuff--when you take a few Comparative Politics classes, the nature of how different forms of government works gets in your head ( "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work"). But feel free to call me an asshat in the comments.