Discuss the merits of presidential primaries. June 2008 Q set for H/W – 1 week To what extent did the nominations of McCain and Obama strengthen the case for reforming the method of choosing presidential candidates?June 2010 Resources Bennett book – p46-58 Primaries and Caucuses evaluated, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2008 Update: Why Hilary Clinton lost the primary race, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review September 2008 The 2004 Presidential Primaries, Edward Ashbee, Politics Review November 2004 Key reform article – In Search of Reform by William G Mayer http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MLB/is_1_53/ai_108694004/ For further reform plans, see also: - Frontloading HQ at http://frontloading.blogspot.com/ - Fix the Primaries - http://fixtheprimaries.com/ - Washington Post Op-Ed - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-closed-primaries- further-polarize-our-politics/2011/09/02/gIQARBPb2J_story.html Articles (below)– - Economist I – p3-4 - Economist II – p5-7 - New York Times letters – p8-9 - New York Times Editorial – p10-11 - Primary reform blog post – p12 - CNN article – p13-14 - National Presidential Caucus – p15 - Primary Election Season too long? No – p16 - Primary Problems p17-21 Invisible primary and early state votes Fundraising Gallup poll leader New Hampshire Presidential Party leader in pre- at start of election Iowa Winner winner candidate election year year George H W 1980 Republicans John Connally Ronald Reagan Bush Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan 1980 Democrats Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1984 Republicans Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan 1984 Democrats Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Gart Hart Walter Mondale George H W George H W 1988 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush Bob Dole Bush Bush Richard 1988 Democrats Michael Dukakis Gary Hart Gephardt Michael Dukakis Michael Dukakis George H W George H W George H W 1992 Republicans George H W Bush George H W Bush Bush Bush Bush 1992 Democrats Bill Clinton Jerry Brown Tom Harkin Paul Tsongas Bill Clinton Patrick 1996 Republicans Bob Dole Bob Dole Bob Dole Buchanan Bob Dole 1996 Democrats Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Bill Clinton 2000 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush John McCain George W Bush 2000 Democrats Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore 2004 Republicans George W Bush George W Bush George W Bush 2004 Democrats Howard Dean Howard Dean John Kerry John Kerry John Kerry 2008 Republicans Rudy Giuliani Rudy Giuliani Mike Huckabee John McCain John McCain 2008 Democrats Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Barrack Obama America's presidential primaries Moving the Californian primary looks like a mistake; but so is not changing the current system Feb 15th 2007 From The Economist print edition IS CALIFORNIA'S governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, about to terminate America's venerable system of primary elections, that months-long political charivari that brings fleeting fame to the otherwise obscure citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire? He certainly seems to be trying. Last weekend the governor said he favoured moving California's presidential primaries up to February 5th. This week the bill passed in California's Senate, and will soon do so in the Assembly (see article). The new date is 22 days after Iowa opens the nominating season with its caucuses, and 14 days after New Hampshire stages the first primaries. If, as they are threatening, other big states such as Illinois, Michigan and Florida follow suit, the presidential nominations for both parties could be sewn up three weeks after the process begins, and almost ten months before the election is actually held in November 2008. Undoubtedly this will change the nature of the American electoral process. The early primaries and caucuses have, by design, tended to be in the smaller states, where they have encouraged an informal style of campaigning based on stump speeches, town-hall meetings and pressing of the flesh. Already, a year before the first primary, candidates for the nominations have been staking out the territory. Hillary Clinton was in New Hampshire last weekend; Barack Obama was there a couple of days later. The audience for their efforts is national: viewers across America can tune in to see a smaller-scale, more human side to their leading politicians than will be on show later in the process. As a result, the existing system offers a chance for the underdog to make his or her mark—as John Kerry did with an upset victory in Iowa in 2004, or as John McCain did in New Hampshire in 2000, going on to give George Bush an unexpected run for his money. Once the big states come into play, television is the only practical way to reach the voters, and the advantage goes to whoever has the biggest pot of money to spend on advertising. But a victory in Iowa or New Hampshire can help an underdog develop the momentum needed to raise enough cash to crack some of those big states. If the process is telescoped down to barely three weeks, there will be no chance for momentum to build up, and probably a good deal less of the ―retail politics‖ that is a refreshing contrast to slick television advertising. That does not mean the existing system is perfect: it gives undue weight to the opinions of voters in a few atypically rural, white and wealthy states. Iowa's 3m inhabitants have been dutiful presidential vetters, but why should they (and their odd views on ethanol subsidies) matter so much more than 36m Californians? The creation in 1988 of ―Super Tuesday‖, an arrangement whereby the southern states hold their primaries on the same day to maximise the region's impact, only enhanced this bias against the big states. So reform would be welcome. But California's move looks self-defeating. As many as 17 states are likely to emulate the Golden State, which would largely neutralise what it is doing. It is reasonably clear where the process will end, as the states scramble over each other to be early: in something closely resembling a national primary on or around a single day as early as possible in the year of the election, and maybe even late in the year before it. Of course, many other countries have party primaries confined to a single day, and the 24-hour news cycle, not to mention the continual guerrilla war in the blogosphere, means that three weeks can be an exceptionally long time in politics. But America is so big, and its tradition of seeking presidential candidates from outside the ranks of party leadership so well entrenched, that a compressed primary system would be a pity. Don't meddle, mend Any solution needs to strike a balance between two laudable but incompatible aims: keeping the intimacy of small-state retail politics and letting the huge numbers of people who live in the big states have a say. The answer is probably a modified version of the ―America Plan‖: it proposes a series of ten randomly selected multi-state primaries, spaced over 20 weeks, in which some big states could vote early. But it takes too long. A system that started with, say, a sequence of five randomly chosen states first, followed by two or three ―Super Tuesdays‖, would be better. And the process should start later: at present, it paralyses the world's mightiest government for more than a year. If the first primary came in April, it would still leave plenty of time for the summer conventions. The chances of such a system emerging soon are slim: it would require the co-operation of the states and the parties, and the states guard their independence jealously. But California's bold move should now prompt thought of reform. In praise of New Hampshire and Iowa The two states that kick off America’s presidential voting look less and less like the rest of the country. What a shame Jan 20th 2000 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition IT IS 8am on a typical day in New Hampshire. The school assembly hall in Plymouth is packed with children and parents who have come to hear John McCain. He talks about Vietnam, a war that is ancient history to most of the pupils, and about his meeting with two (male) rap singers whom they all know. (―Busta Rhymes was wearing a very nice dress,‖ he jokes. ―Perhaps I could borrow it.‖) Two hours later, the children go off to class to discuss what they have learned (―that politicians are more interesting than we thought‖, is the consensus) and Mr McCain leaves to attend a lunch with the Rotary Club of Concord. As he leaves, his bus passes that of Steve Forbes, on his way to a meeting with a veterans’ organisation in Manchester, the state’s biggest city. Simultaneously, around the corner from the veterans’ club, Bill Bradley is answering questions at a health-care forum organised at the University of New Hampshire in Manchester. By the end of the day he will also have pressed the flesh at Lindy’s Diner, an obligatory stop for candidates in the state (―We’ve had them all in here over the years,‖ says its owner). Al Gore, who held his own school meeting the week before, pops in later. As America’s long process of picking its president formally gets under way next week, the country’s tradition of grass-roots democracy seems as vibrant as ever. ―No sooner do you set foot on the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult,‖ Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835. ―Here the people of one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of a church; there, the election of a representative is going on...The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the preoccupation of a citizen of the United States.‖ Yet the impression is, in large part, misleading.