Unintended Consequences
Linda Fowler has a really interesting op-ed in Newsday that examines the consequences of all the moving and shuffling of primaries in the states. The unintended consequences of those moves are not likely to be a positive for the overall election process. In fact, they are very likely to be detrimental and will make elections more about packaging of candidates than about substance. It will also make the unexpectedly strong, come-from-nowhere candidate virtually impossible.
California's decision earlier this year to move its presidential primary to Feb. 5 set off a round of competition among states trying to beat each other to the polls that has left us with a national primary in all but name. Yet we have achieved this without deliberation about its consequences or rules to guide the process.
The nation's most populous state is understandably weary of its irrelevance in selecting the chief executive, partly because of its traditionally late presidential primary. But now another big state, Florida, has leaped ahead to Jan. 29, and at least 20 states, including New York and New Jersey, will vote on the same day as California.
Requiring candidates to launch what is effectively a national campaign ensures that only those who have honed their messages in advance will be able to succeed. No longer will candidates have a chance to experiment with themes that may resonate with the electorate and build momentum state by state. Pre-tested themes will supplant face-to-face contact with voters, giving pollsters and consultants even more weight than they already enjoy. The edge will go even more to candidates able to most successfully court donors and activists in what insiders call the "invisible primary."
The idea of an outsider candidate using Iowa and New Hampshire to bring new life and new ideas to the party establishment will be a thing of the past. Substantial challenges like those mounted by Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or Ronald Reagan in 1976 will become nearly impossible.
This is not a good move, I suspect. What this will do is to effectively make the primary a preliminary election, not a winnowing process. It will also make the political industry - the people who make their livings off elections and politics (without actually running for office) more important. But it will virtually eliminate the people - the voters - from the process of selecting candidates. We'll have popularity contests - beauty pageants - rather than an examination of candidates. Pre-packaged, programmed, poll-tested messages right up front from candidates who are virtually interchangeable regardless of party. This is also the larger states hijacking any influence the smaller states still have. We have a real problem growing here.
By Bleepless, Sunday, 13 May , 2007 @ 8:45 pm
January 1. That’ll do it.
By Purple Avenger, Monday, 14 May , 2007 @ 4:38 am
OTOH, there is a severe price to pay in November when fundamentally unelectable and very flawed fashion candidates lock up a nomination early.
If you know the other side is bent on suicide, all you need to do is put forth something that’s not vomit inducing and a November win is guaranteed.