Primary Problems

If some states get their way, this year’s presidential primary season could be disastrous for American democracy. California, New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey are just five of the nineteen states that have recently announced that they are moving, or considering moving, their presidential primaries up several months to February 5, effectively creating a national primary. The Democratic and Republican nominees will be crowned two months ahead of last year’s schedule.

Though we understand the desire of many states—especially large ones—to have more say in the process of choosing nominees, they are making the wrong decision in moving their primaries forward. Their selfish decisions not only disenfranchise smaller states, but they vitiate the entire electoral process. We hope that at least some states reconsider.

The primary election process has traditionally been the way in which candidates were introduced to and vetted by their constituencies. Candidates could make well-considered decisions to enter the presidential race and declare their candidacies just before the New Hampshire primary without sacrificing much of a head start. If primaries are all early, however, candidates will need to build up their appeal and bank accounts long before the primaries start, pushing the campaign season far earlier.

This trend also undercuts the time-honored practice of retail politics: Presidential candidates had the time and incentive—particularly in small states—to get to know as many voters as they could on as personal a level as possible. Without a protracted process that allows candidates time to actually meet with members of the voting public, voters make less informed decisions, forced to rely on media soundbites instead of actual engagement with nominees.

A drawn-out primary schedule also tempers disparities between campaigns’ war chests. With the old system, a lesser-known candidate had time to build momentum in the first primaries and translate that momentum into donations that would allow them to be competitive in larger states. Candidates were also forced to spend time in smaller, bellwether states convincing voters of their worthiness. For example, despite setbacks in early primaries, the long primary season allowed Bill Clinton to turn the mishaps of his early campaign around, garnering him a following that propelled him through the later elections. If many of the primaries are held on the same day, candidates who are not well-known nationally early on or who do not yet have enough money to campaign competitively in all states will be at even more of a disadvantage than they already are. For example, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has already pulled out of the race for lack of funds. Pushing all the primaries together will only worsen the disturbingly large advantage well-financed candidates have at the outset.

If the nineteen states do not reverse course, it will be all of America’s voters that lose out. Having a long primary season in which smaller states tend to vote before larger states gives smaller states more of a say early on, but preserves the importance of the elections of larger states, whose vote-totals dwarf the smaller states’. In a nation that often struggles with how to practice best democracy, we hope that the preservation of the current primary system will allow for at least one arena in which politicians can practice the sort of small-town personal politics that so often get sacrificed in a county of our size.