By Brigitte L. Nacos
I thought I would never agree with Sarah Palin. But today I do. Palin told FOX News last night that she wants the primary competition to continue beyond South Carolina. Her tactic to “keep this thing going” would be a vote for Newt Gingrich in Saturday’s primary. Obviously, she would like to see Mitt Romney’s steamroller slowed down and keep his competitors—especially Gingrich who is most fluent in divisive Tea Party-Speak—viable beyond South Caroline and Florida.
Although for very different reasons, I agree with Sarah Palin that the primary process should continue. Otherwise, the presidential candidate selection process will be once again a gross violation of the democratic ideal that was the rationale for the post-1968 reforms in both parties: Not party bosses, not the political elite, but rather voters were to determine the nominees of their respective parties.
When a sitting president is not challenged, as is the case with Barack Obama this year, the sole focus is on the competition within the “out” party—this time around on the GOP. But regardless of party, the selection process has proved to be as undemocratic as the pre-1968 situation, when primaries were merely beauty contests and subject to be embraced or disregarded by party leaders.
While the parties themselves contributed to this state of affairs, media reporting and punditry as well as pollsters are first in line in the list of villains.
A look at the caucus/primary calendar of the GOP reveals that relatively small, unrepresentative states with tiny numbers of delegates dominate among the early election sites. In Iowa 28 delegates were at stake, in New Hampshire 12. Far larger, demographically representative states, were weeks or month later than the earliest caucus and primary states. For example, California with a total of 172 delegates at stake is set for a primary on June 5th, New York with 95 and Pennsylvania with 72 for April 3rd.
The news media, pundits, and pollsters, all interested in hyping the news, have good reasons to rarely or never reveal the total number of delegates needed to win a major party’s nomination. In this year’s Republican competition, the winner needs 1,144 delegates—one half of the 2,287 total plus one!
Only if you are informed about the high number of delegates at stake here, can you know what a tiny number are spoken for after Iowa and New Hampshire: a total of 40 delegates—yes, forty delegates of a 2,287 grand total!
And, yet, news reporting, news analysis, and punditry have all declared winners and losers following the decisions in the first two states. Since financial donations dry up for the declared losers in Iowa and New Hampshire, it was inevitable for Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman to throw the towel. Perry is likely to be next as soon as his money cushion is exhausted. By the time, the largest states hold their primaries, voters do not have the same choice as those in the small early bird states. And chances are that they have no chance at all—that one candidate has long been the declared winner without coming close to the required number of delegates.
Think a moment of today’s situation: After Iowa and New Hampshire and only 40 delegates out of a total 2,287 dished out, Mitt Romney, a clear winner in New Hampshire (12 delegates) and but for eight votes sharing the victory with Rick Santorum in Iowa (28 delegates) is widely perceived as the GOP’s sure presidential nominee. That Romney is unstoppable will be trumpeted even louder, if he wins South Caroline—even though that state’s 25 delegates lifts to only 65 the total of those spoken for, again, out of 2,287.
After listening to more than a dozen debates in this far too long primary season, after listening to the remaining five candidates in the GOP line-up the other night, and after reviewing the paradox of early caucus/primary states with small numbers of delegates compared to the high total, I came to conclude this: First, the selection process (not only that of the GOP but of the Democratic Party as well) is far removed from the participatory ideal; second, this process does not necessary attract the best and the brightest,
Contrary to the GOP’s presidential hopefuls this season who love to put down America’s allies in Europe, the candidate selection process conducted within those countries’ parties and their membership may not always produce the best candidates—but never those presenting a clear minority within a given party or---the clueless
Comments