I keep hearing rumors that South Dakota will try to move its primary forward in the next presidential election year, "so that we will matter." I think that in our case this is a vain strategy. If every state has its primary while there is still ice on the lake, how many politicians or pundits will paying attention to the Rushmore State, and how many to California? That is the situation we are headed for, and it is bad news for the Republic.
South Dakota Politics is split on this, two to one. I believe that our colleague, Mr. Heppler, is in favor of an earlier Dakota Primary, for reasons I sympathize with. I would love to be interviewed on Fox Report. Professor Schaff and I are strongly opposed to "front-loading" the primary process. We need a chance to get to know the candidates, and the series of primaries and caucuses strung out along the election year is an invaluable tool for that. What happens if the next Dean screams just after he has won a whole boomin' bunch of state primaries?
Another problem is that the front loading pushes the real winnowing process into the year before the election. That is already happening now, largely in anticipation of front-loading.
I am on record in favor of a system of primaries that would balance large states and small states, and keep the process from coming to too early a close. Here is my proposal in brief, from my column in the Aberdeen American News.
If you really want reform, the way to do it is divide the states into five groups, each including large and small states from every region of the country. Each group would be assigned the first Tuesday of some month from February to June. In subsequent elections the order would be rotated, so everyone gets to go first sooner or later. The purpose would not be to benefit one party or another, or any state over the others, but to do what is best for the Republic.
Apparently, I am not the only one thinking along these lines. Here is the "Delaware Plan."
Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.
My proposal alleviates, somewhat, the problem mentioned above, by beginning a month earlier. One could just as well go into July. I think rotating would look more attractive to more states than a simply progressive system. But I think that any system along these lines would be a remarkable improvement.
If South Dakota really wants to be important, let both parties climb on this bandwagon.
JASON ADDS: I should note that I have changed my stance on the subject, and agree with my colleagues that moving the primary forward begets greater problems nationally as we front-load the primaries. I know I wrote about it somewhere, but I can't seem to locate the exact post. Edit: Here's the post, where I commented on California's decision to move their primaries forward.
Recent Comments