|
|
|
December 29, 2007
Minority rule, or "outlier" rule?
Burt Prelutsky takes a look at a frustrating question much on everyone's mind -- what's so special about Iowa and New Hampshire? Don't ask me. We should probably all be grateful that the first primary isn't held in the city of Philadelphia (where in the last mayoral election the Republican whats-his-name got a full 17% of the vote). It's a ridiculous and artificial situation which Prelutsky analogizes to flipping a coin: how was it decided that those two improbable states would be given so much importance? I understand that for reasons I can't quite fathom they get to kick off the primary season, but so what? To me it makes about as much sense as inflating the importance of winning the coin toss at the start of a football game.As to why, it does not seem to matter to anyone. Once such insane things have in place over a long period of time, so many people rely on them that they develop constitutencies which will defend them as pillars of our democracy. Even our very way of life. Why, I'm sure the argument could be made that Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are part of traditional American values! Here here! On another pet topic, Prelutsky asks another excellent question: How is it that people who drive around with bumper stickers that read "War is Not the Answer" aren't the least bit embarrassed to be seen in public?I think they are as clueless as people who claim -- like many of these letter writers in today's Inquirer -- to be "against violence" (but who scream and yell every time their favorite Eagles linebacker makes a good tackle). Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against violent contact sports. It's just that I'm enough of a realist to agree with Orwell: "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words: it is war minus the shooting."Saying "war is not the answer" presupposes that we are not at war when we are. Moreover, the notion that all war is wrong means that it was wrong to go to war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and it would have been wrong to stop the Rwandans from slaughtering each other. I think the slogan should be superimposed over the smokestacks of Auschwitz or something. But, much as the "war is not the answer" people are lacking in common sense, they turn out and vote in the primaries. Even though they are what economists and statisticians would call "outliers," under the primary system the outliers out-vote the people with common sense. Unfortunately, those who aren't outliers (and who don't sport inane bumperstickers) also tend not to drive to the primaries in outlier states. Which is why, in the name of democracy, the rest of us are ruled by outliers in outlying areas. posted by Eric on 12.29.07 at 10:01 AM
Comments
The reason that Iowa and New Hampshire are first is because somebody has to be first, and if we started with big state like California, New York, or Florida, we might as well let them elect the president by themselves. The caucus is the only chance for Iowans to have any effect in national politics. Once the caucus is over, the candidates will focus their efforts on the large states, and Iowa and its electoral votes will return to national oblivion. John S. · December 29, 2007 11:40 PM Our entire election process is baffling and greatly outdated. Primaries are almost entirely unnecessary and the electoral college is unnecessary. ryan · December 30, 2007 02:27 AM I can't agree that the electoral college is unnecessary. It slightly dilutes, without overturning, the power of states with large populations. This is its essential purpose; the argument that it is an obsolete reflection of slow travel during the 18th century is a dishonest dodge. Brett · December 30, 2007 08:28 AM I'm under the impression that the reason they are used is because they are small states, where the candidate has to actually meet the voters. Success in Iowa does not depend on TV ads or media 'news' reports - it relies on impressing people face-to-face with why one should be President. One cannot buy success in New Hampshire via big budgets and TV ad saturation (unlike, for example, a Senate race in New York or New Jersey). This enables dark-horse candidates with a compelling message and a small budget to have a shot at becoming a viable candidate, and eliminates moneyed candidates who only look good on TV (Perot) or on paper. Old joke from '88: one farmer says to the other "What to you think of George Bush?" and the other replies "I don't know - I've only met him three times." I could be wrong, of course, but I think holding the initial Caucus or Primary in a large state would be detrimental to our democracy. If all it took to win a nomination for President were a lot of money and a fawning media, Ted Kennedy would have been nominated several times by now. One reason for using the same two states every time is that the voters become less gullible regarding the blandishments of celebrity politicians. David D · December 30, 2007 02:49 PM Perhaps all cauci and primaries should be held on the same day, so that no state, large or small, has an unfair advantage. Of course, I would prefer the parties hadn't thrown the expense of their nominations on the people through primary elections. Oh sure, it sounds democratic, but I imagine the parties would find a way to overturn the results should the winners be unacceptable to the party leaders. After all, the primaries aren't legally binding, are they? Brett · December 30, 2007 05:18 PM I've often thought we should give a prominent position to the states that are nearly even splits -- like Ohio and Florida. Perhaps letting the state with the closest popular vote (as a percentage) in 2008 have the third primary (after Iowa and New Hampshire) in 2012... It would certainly address the "electability" issue head-on. Clint · December 31, 2007 12:47 AM Or... somehow... we could rotate the primary/caucus schedule among various electorally small states? Pull their names out of a hat a year or so before the election? Determine who was "small" using some kind of rule of thumb? I dunno. Jamie · January 2, 2008 04:25 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Is Huckabee simply the anti-Romney?
• Callipyginous • Ephebiphobia on the campaign trail? • Policy Of Blockade • HAPPY NEW YEAR! • slanted or planted? • Stifling diversity in the name of diversity? Insensitivity in the name of sensitivity? • Fred's Message To Iowans • A Marine Needs Help • Recreating a past we only imagine
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I want to know the question that war is not an answer to.