RSS Feed
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guest Column
Several states including big delegate states such as California and Florida are in the process of moving their presidential primaries up to Feb. 5th. Last year, in an attempt to have more significance in the presidential primary, Alabama moved its presidential primary forward from June 6th to Feb. 5th. That move may prove of little value if California and Florida and other more populous states such as Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey move their primaries up. Aside from making Alabama little more than an afterthought in the plans of the leading candidates, the forward loading of state primaries to the first of the year is creating a new dynamic in presidential politics that may not be in the best interest of the American people. For years primary season would often stretch into April or May, giving the voters in both primaries more time to evaluate the whole list of candidates including candidates that enter the presidential race as relative unknowns. In some election years, the nominees were not decided until the June primary. In fact, in 1976 the Super Tuesday of the primaries that year occurred the first Tuesday in June which was the last day of the primaries. When the primaries are more spread out, voters have an opportunity to get to know dark horse candidates such as Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter (1976) and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton (1992). But with so many states moving their primaries up, some relatively unknown potentially good candidates will never have a chance to build an effective campaign. It is not that lesser known candidates lack the ability to raise money. Past presidential primaries prove qualified candidates can raise money as long as they have a chance to impact the race, that is, win or finish strong in enough primaries to build confidence among contributors. When the primaries are all bunched together at the first of the year, as it appears they will be in 2008, these candidates have no chance to raise the money needed to reach the voters in enough early primary states to stay in the race. Because there is little time for substantive evaluation of lesser known candidates, the primaries come down to who has the money to run the slickest ad campaign. Moreover, early primaries put significantly more financial pressure on the lesser known candidates by forcing them to spend their money to establish and build name recognition among the voters. With so many primaries right at the beginning of the primary season they do not have the opportunity to build any momentum. Consequently, there is a high probability that the Democrat, and possibly the Republican, 2008 presidential nominee will be determined on Feb. 5th. Ultimately it is the voters that suffer when so many primaries are compressed in such a short amount of time that even wellfunded, lesser known candidates will not have enough time or money to connect with them. Having so many states with early primaries will narrow the field of viable candidates to those who are super rich, super connected or who have the media equivalent of superstar status, but who are not necessarily the best qualified. Thus, politically speaking, the rich will get richer and more powerful leaving the voters with fewer choices.
Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.
|
for larger version       |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
