U.S. Common Sense

Presidential primaries: What is the role of a primary, and why is it important when it is held? While these two questions appear to have obvious answers, they are currently being discussed in state houses around the country this year. No one can deny that the 2008 Presidential elections will be the most unique and active compared to those of the past 50 years, and this energy has spurred numerous candidates to enter the race early as well as states vying for position in the primary process.

So what are the primaries all about? With a large field of candidates within the same political party currently deciding to declare or already declared their intention to run for office, party supporters from each state need to discuss and determine who they want to represent their views in the Presidential election. The states provide this service by setting aside a date for voting on these candidates. With the states holding their voting during a six-month period, the results of the states that vote early can influence the pool of candidates as well as the voting patterns of the states which follow. Due to the unprecedented election two years from now, states are now trying to move their primary dates ahead in the election cycle to become more relevant and potentially impact the primary votes of other states which follows.

The latest state to take on this task is California. In a bipartisan measure introduced on 1/19/2007 called for the June 3^rd primary election to be moved up to February 3^rd. By moving the primary forward five months, California hopes to make an impact on the outcome of the primary process. In the past, candidates did not spend much time or money in California campaigning since the primary process had already indicated who was most likely to win the nomination.

By moving ahead in the process to be the fifth state to vote, California could potentially change the entire outcome of the election. For starters, California is a very large state, so if a candidate were serious in making a run at winning the states delegates, they would need to spend a lot of time and money travelling through the state and visiting her distinct regions. With the primary being a few days after the Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries, there is little time to travel between elections to all the key areas of the state, unless they sacrifice one of the first four states to gain more time. Secondly, if a candidate does score well in California but then suffers a public relations disaster later on, they might still carry enough delegates through the primary process to win the nomination, but then become a political liability on Election Day. Lastly, the best qualified candidate may not have enough money early in the primary process in order to make a serious challenge in California, placing them well behind lesser qualified candidates, where as if the California primary was later in the primaries, the better qualified candidate could have easily won the state.

So this begs the question “Does having a prolonged primary process benefit or hurt America?” As explained above, moving California’s primary forward five months can potentially change the dynamics of the election cycle, but it is difficult to quantify the positive and negative impact of the primaries in their current fashion. So would a national primary day be a better alternative? For starters, a single primary election day would interrupt the nation only once and would provide a quick decision as to who would win the primaries nomination. Additionally, most (if not all) candidates would be open for winning various states since there will be no prior election influence upon the voters. On the other hand, there are chances for split results with so many challengers on the ballot leading to possible run-off elections or divisions occurring within the party over who should be nominated. Also, lesser known candidates might not have enough time prior to the primary day to get their message across or develop name recognition unlike they would in the current process.

It is difficult to determine if a single-day primary system would be better than the current system, but it might be something to consider in the future. As it stands now, the primaries serve to weed out candidates to make the nominating process easier for the parties to select the candidate the represent the party on Election Day. With that being the case, we can foresee other states jockeying for a prime location in the primary process in the hopes that their issues will influence the votes in other states. This isn’t a perfect process, but it is one that works.