Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Dream On
I have a dream. It's not a big dream; it's just a little dream. My dream -- and I hope you don't find this too crazy -- is that I would like to cast a meaningful vote in a presidential primary before I die.
I don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire and I don' t think it's likely that I ever will. No, I currently live, have lived, and will live in a nondescript, normal everyday state. But our silly presidential primary process is structured such that I have never made a difference in choosing a nominee for President.
In 1996, the first election I was old enough to vote in, I was in Brazil. I suppose I could have gotten an absentee ballot, but I was busy with other things.
In 2000, George W. Bush was the nominee long before Utah had its primary. I didn't bother voting, because what's the point?
In 2004, Bush was unopposed for the Republican nomination, and what was I going to do, register as a Democrat and vote for John Kerry? I don' t think so.
Today, Virginia had its presidential primary, and I went to my polling place this morning to cast an utterly meaningless vote for a candidate I really truly want to be the next President. Sure, they'll count my vote, but since Governor Romney has already dropped out of the race, I don't think it will help him get elected. Besides, Virginia is winner-take-all, and there's no way he's getting a plurality of votes, now that he's removed himself from contention.
In an ideal world, I would love a national primary. Sure, it would be expensive and cumbersome, and a small state like New Hampshire might not get the attention it currently gets, but the plus side is that every voter would be able to vote for the candidate of his or her choice and have the hope that that candidate actually is theoretically capable of winning. No one would drop out before the voters had a chance to make their will known.
Of course, I know that's not a realistic goal, at least not in the near future (though I intend to live past the age of 80). So a next-best solution would be for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have already done: ban winner-take-all primaries. If a candidate were to be able to get the same proportion of delegates as he gets votes, then the most widely popular candidate can make it. As it is, it's the candidate who's most popular in the winner-take-all states. In fact, I've heard it was the Giuliani camp who made all those northeastern states like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut go winner-take-all for that very reason. This isn't the electoral college (a system I lukewarmly support , incidentally) -- it's not a federal thing; it's a party thing.
Let's all band together and get the Republican Party to come to its senses and allow me to cast a meaningful vote in 2012. Or at least by 2060, when I'll be 83.
I don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire and I don' t think it's likely that I ever will. No, I currently live, have lived, and will live in a nondescript, normal everyday state. But our silly presidential primary process is structured such that I have never made a difference in choosing a nominee for President.
In 1996, the first election I was old enough to vote in, I was in Brazil. I suppose I could have gotten an absentee ballot, but I was busy with other things.
In 2000, George W. Bush was the nominee long before Utah had its primary. I didn't bother voting, because what's the point?
In 2004, Bush was unopposed for the Republican nomination, and what was I going to do, register as a Democrat and vote for John Kerry? I don' t think so.
Today, Virginia had its presidential primary, and I went to my polling place this morning to cast an utterly meaningless vote for a candidate I really truly want to be the next President. Sure, they'll count my vote, but since Governor Romney has already dropped out of the race, I don't think it will help him get elected. Besides, Virginia is winner-take-all, and there's no way he's getting a plurality of votes, now that he's removed himself from contention.
In an ideal world, I would love a national primary. Sure, it would be expensive and cumbersome, and a small state like New Hampshire might not get the attention it currently gets, but the plus side is that every voter would be able to vote for the candidate of his or her choice and have the hope that that candidate actually is theoretically capable of winning. No one would drop out before the voters had a chance to make their will known.
Of course, I know that's not a realistic goal, at least not in the near future (though I intend to live past the age of 80). So a next-best solution would be for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have already done: ban winner-take-all primaries. If a candidate were to be able to get the same proportion of delegates as he gets votes, then the most widely popular candidate can make it. As it is, it's the candidate who's most popular in the winner-take-all states. In fact, I've heard it was the Giuliani camp who made all those northeastern states like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut go winner-take-all for that very reason. This isn't the electoral college (a system I lukewarmly support , incidentally) -- it's not a federal thing; it's a party thing.
Let's all band together and get the Republican Party to come to its senses and allow me to cast a meaningful vote in 2012. Or at least by 2060, when I'll be 83.
Comments: Post a Comment
