Given the widespread coverage of the New Hampshire primary, I debated whether it was worth even writing about. Unfortunately, I think there’s a clause somewhere that requires all blogs to sound off on the issue, and so we boldly toss The Modest Proposal’s hat in the ring. Since everyone else is parsing the results, I’d like to skip over that and address a larger issue:
Do the benefits of early primaries outweigh their un-democratic nature?
Stretching out the primary season gives the early states a disproportionate effect on the outcome. Is this desirable? The cornerstone of democracy is that every vote carries equal weight. If your state holds its primary after February 5 (like mine does), then chances are the nominee will already have been decided; I am reminded of the ancient Roman Comitia Centuriata, which voted in blocks sorted by wealth. The richest citizens voted first, and voting was discontinued once a majority was reached.
The benefit of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, as I see it, is that it gives smaller candidates a chance to be heard by limiting the audience they have to win over. After a few wins in small states, a relative unknown can become a national name, as was the case with Mr Clinton in 1992.
Is there a way around this? Perhaps one or two early states, followed by a national primary a few weeks later? Should we return to party caucuses and smoke-filled rooms? Or maybe one big primary, but with preference voting to allow instant run-offs? Should primaries even be conducted by state - would it be better to go with a nation-wide majority? I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter.