The American Presidential Nomination Process

In recent years, the presidential primary season has served as a backdrop to instances of human drama that have illuminated man's ever-hopeful nature, yet also revealed his capability for cruelty. In 2000, for example, a malicious scene unfolded in South Carolina as John McCain fell victim to a vicious smear campaign that essentially ended his bid for the Republican nomination in what the New York Times later described as "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics." Eight years later, conversely, amid growing controversy over comments made by his pastor, Barack Obama delivered an eloquent speech on the state of race relations in contemporary America. He described ugly vestiges of Jim Crow discrimination but also articulated his hope for a bright future in which society is not "irrevocably bound to a tragic past." The speech endeared him to countless Americans of all races, and helped put his candidacy back on track and eventually became the first African-American president of the United States. With such displays of triumph and controversy, it is unfortunate that many citizens are utterly confused by the procedure of nominations, and therefore, become disengaged from the political process. One explanation is that many people believe the nomination process is excessively complicated, anachronistic, and arbitrary, rendering some voters more powerful than others. As a result of this dissatisfaction, many legitimate reform proposals have been promulgated, but none yet have been instituted. Consequently, many of the nagging flaws persist.

One significant problem with the contemporary system is the monopoly that is given to Iowa and New Hampshire in conducting the first caucus and primary, respectively. Every presidential election cycle, these two diminutive states exert an inordinate amount of influence over the nomination process. Candidates who perform well in these states can gain a great advantage and can segue a victory, or even just a better-than-expected showing, into great momentum with respect to fund-raising, media attention, and victories in later primaries. Politicians understand this and begin campaigning in these states as much as a year in advance. They listen attentively to the problems and needs of these two state's citizenry, which can sometimes morph into outright pandering to the special interests of the Granite and Hawkeye states. There is "no constitutional basis" (Lansford 39) for this advantageous position but is rather a mere consequence of historical precedence. Moreover, Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the country as a whole, further exacerbating the problem of them being the bellwethers of presidential hopefuls. For instance, African-Americans constitute 12.3 percent of the United States but only 2.1 percent of Iowa and 0.7 of New Hampshire (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). They have similar under representation of every major minority group and also posses a more rural population and experience less poverty than the rest of the nation. Therefore, a candidate who has great appeal to urban areas with diverse populations does not compete on a level playing field in New Hampshire and Iowa. Larry Sabato, director of University of Virginia's Center for Politics, succinctly writes, "Put simply, why should two tiny, heavily white, disproportionately rural states have a staggeringly powerful and electorally imbalanced say in the making of the next president? Answering that question is easy enough: They shouldn't" (Sabato 143).

Other states desire this power and so, accordingly, move their primaries to earlier dates in an attempt to capture some of the glory. In this seemingly never ending process, a phenomenon known as front-loading, the states with early primaries then move their primaries further back to stay in front of the pack. This compressed and truncated primary calendar has many adverse consequences. With so many states holding primaries in this short time period, it is often possible for candidates to secure the nomination before citizens in the later states have an opportunity to exercise their vote. In 2000, for example, Al Gore and George W. Bush had essentially secured their party's nomination by March 7, before 33 states had held their primaries. Such a process leaves many voters disengaged from the nomination process, feeling as if they have been essentially disenfranchised by the system. In addition, front-loading tends to unfairly favor well-known and well-financed politicians. With numerous primaries occurring in such a short time span, candidates require a large, expensive organization to help manage their campaign. If they risk trying to grow and build their candidacy after a good showing in the first few states, the race could be over before it begins for them. Lastly, a short primary season may not give voters enough time to deliberate and observe the candidates as they are vetted by journalists and other individuals in the media. Fortunately, we do not live a static political environment and there are a plethora of good reform proposals that have been put forth.

One of the best known reforms is the national primary. First gaining attention when Woodrow Wilson endorsed the idea in 1913 (Smith and Springer 113), this calls for conducting all fifty state's primaries or caucuses on one day, presumably sometime in early summer. This alternative would have the advantage of simplifying a complicated process and replacing it with a method that is clear, direct, and democratic. All voters would have equal influence on the decision, unlike the contemporary system, and it would "level the playing field for primary voters and increase the inclusiveness and participation in the selection process" (Smith and Springer 113). It would also rid the system of undue influence that is bestowed upon states that vote early in the current nomination process. There would be less pandering to states like New Hampshire and Iowa and their narrow, local issues. It creates a moral hazard when candidates benefit from making promises to certain interests in some states while those policies are possibly detrimental to the nation at large. It would also most likely increase voter participation and involvement since a single day in which all states vote would be a significant media event with extensive coverage. Furthermore, as a corollary to greater voter participation, it is likely that many of these voters would be less ideologically skewed compared to the voters that participate in the early primaries of the contemporary system. Lastly, this reform would shorten the primary season and help reduce the strain put on a candidate who sometimes have to survive a long and strenuous nomination process. However, this reform is not without its detractors who present many convincing counterpoints.

Many