Florida – Aberdeen
Iowa – Dar Williams
California – Phantom Planet
I don’t know about y’all, but I’ve always thought that Florida just didn’t have nearly enough effect on Presidential elections. Sure, 2000 turned into a battle over 500 votes in the state, and sure as one of about 8 swing states it gets unending attention for a huge chunk of every election-year, but they’re stuck with a useless primary.
The solution? Well, completely destroy the primary calendar by moving before the assigned February 5 date and try to bully yourself into yet another position of ridiculous authority. And in doing so, open the floodgates to every other random state to jump earlier and earlier, pushing Iowa and New Hampshire earlier, until they finally bleed into 2007. Iowa caucuses on Christmas Day, 2007, why not?!
Speaking as someone whose had more than his fill of talk about the importance of Florida to fill an entire lifetime, I find it difficult to muster even the slightest shred of sympathy for them. Given our broken Electoral system they already receive far more attention and effort than they ever deserved – scrapping for just a little more is the height of arrogance and a misguided sense of entitlement. Same goes for Michigan.
None of this should be construed to imply that I support the stranglehold of Iowa and New Hampshire (though as a current New Hampshire resident I do have to say I have really been looking forward to participating in the First Primary). In my mind there should clearly be a system of some kind that ensures a few small primaries to start the campaign – something far preferable to a single national primary. Of course, there’s no reason that it should always be the same few states – clearly a rotation system that guarantees many different states a chance in the limelight, which emphasizes regional, political, and social diversity should be the ideal.
However, this has to be planned out – the anarchy of every state rushing forward serves the interests of no one. Perhaps the only positive that may come from all this is that it will inspire the national committees to blow up the whole primary system and start from scratch.
On another note, the measure in California to split their electoral votes by district is yet another way of demonstrating the stupidity of our current system. The idea that splitting off 20 secure Democratic votes while leaving the winner-takes-all system intact in every other state should be ludicrous on its face. Beyond that, you still have the problem that votes would be aggregated by district. So if you vote in one district and your candidate loses by 20 votes, they still get nothing. It doesn’t actually create the ideal of “one person, one vote” any more than the old system – it just creates 50 new pockets for the unfairness to manifest itself.
Why there is even a question about any of this is difficult for me to understand. Anyone who cares about actually reforming the voting system should simply be encouraging states to ratify the agreement that they will simply distribute all of their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally as soon as states adding up to at least 270 votes all agree. It’s quick, it’s simple, it easy. And it guarantees that individual “reforms” like California’s don’t unfairly tip the balance by creating a nationwide patchwork of conflicting systems.
I can’t believe this will actually pass in California, given that it has no advantage in terms of fairness and is clearly designed purely to help Republicans win elections. I do agree with lots of folks who have suggested that the real point is simply to force the Democrats to spend a bunch of money to fight it – money which otherwise could go to supporting actual candidates.
It’s all rather depressing.