I'll see your anti-democracy, and raise you...
by
gvillain
12/31/2007, 11:46 AM #
This is a rare moment -- perhaps some strange effect of the holiday season -- where I agree with Mr. Hitchens. But allow me to up his ante: what's most "undemocratic" about the nomination is the staggered primary process itself, which gives disproportionate influence to the early voting states. Why has the media and public accepted this as a fair way to nominate a presidential candidate?
Moreover, there is no logical reason that it has to be that way. It seems the process is a holdover from the pre-television, pre-youtube, and pre-private jet era; when stump speeches and debates were not nearly as ubiquitous as they are now; when candidates needed to focus on a few states at a time in order for voters to get to know them intimately. But times have changed. Why is it that the public and media turn a blind eye to this "gangsterization" of the primary process, rather than acknowledge two more logical and fair alternatives: (1) have all states hold primaries on the same day or (2) if the staggered process is absolutely necessary, rotate the pecking order every 4 years, and allow some new states a moment in the early-voting spotlight?