The broken nomination system

As happy as I am about Obama’s recent surge, Harry Reid is right: the presidential nomination system is broken. I think one big primary day would be a mistake, but how about choosing four representative early primary states that changes each election?

«< A.V. Club interview with Paul Thomas Anderson    Clinton wins New Hampshire »>

Tags:

Comments (13)

I'm all for an Obama win in NV if it severely damages Rory Reid's career, which of course, it won't.

Josh Eveleth | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 5:07pm

this whole nomination system question got me thinking:

while the presidential election is spelled out in the constitution, who the hell decides on the primary system for selecting a nominee?

shouldn't it just be up to each party -- or does the constitution have anything to say about that?

jbg. | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 5:41pm

it's up to the party. the constitution says nothing about the party system.

crazymonk | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 5:44pm

which is what i assumed.

so what's the appeal of letting 2 states ostensibly decide for the whole country?

especially 2 states that some (me) would consider "crazy states."

jbg. | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 6:25pm

I think it's in candidates' and the media's best interests to have a very narrow focus initially. IA and NH are pretty small and don't have suckingly awful urban wastelands (or the ones they do are easy to ignore since nobody outside those states realizes they exist) and candidates can do the whole folksy pancake breakfast thing. Good backdrop for introducing yourself to the public. Sure, the people are ill-served, but who ever cared about the people?

Jon May | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 6:57pm

You ain't hard if you ain't been on the mean streets of Laconia.

Lorelei | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 7:42pm

I got gas in Des Moines once. That was enough Des Moines for me. Apparently it was too much for the candidates, cause I didn't notice any photo-ops (though I didn't look, so there may have been some).

Jon May | Tue, 01/08/2008 - 8:25pm

I think it would be better to randomize the first few states every cycle... it would add fairness and unpredictability and theoretically would re-enfranchise a lot of voters.

Slater | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 1:02am

cm, why would having them all on the same day be bad?

Elissa | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 8:09am

Having all the primaries on the same day would be bad because it would reward the candidates with the biggest name recognition and the most money at the start. There's no chance for an unknown candidate to come in with a new or unique message and persuade a smaller group of voters to pay attention to him/her and then for that candidate's surprising success in one state to allow him/her to become known nationally.

RumorsDaily | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 8:31am

ah...

Elissa | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 9:13am

What RumorsDaily said. I actually like the small state process, but it shouldn't be the same states year after year.

At least IA and NH decided to choose completely different candidates this time.

crazymonk | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 9:51am

Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big underground homosexual population. Des Moines, Iowa, for example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know
it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians. I swear to God.
You know what Stuart, I like you.
You're not like the other people, here in the trailer park.

jbg. | Wed, 01/09/2008 - 10:13am