Presidential Voting May Begin This Year
Get this: Iowans could be caucusing before they open Christmas presents this year, meaning that Presidential voting for the 2008 contest could actually begin in the year 2007.
Here's why: The South Carolina Republican Party Chairman and the New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner are reportedly going to announce tomorrow that they are moving their states' primaries earlier into January, with New Hampshire to be in the first week of that month.
Iowa officials have vowed to move the state's caucus into December -- before Christmas, lest a vote during the holidays affect turnout.
Update: The date for the South Carolina Republicans is Jan. 19, which would put the New Hampshire primary Jan. 5 (if the WSJ is right that it is 14 days earlier).
The sooner the better, this way there will be less intra-party fight and will position the Democrats to energize all of their attention to the GOP; and whip them to hell!
This is terrible news for Obama, because he has been vigorously campaigning to ensure that the youth vote is out in Iowa and in mid-December, most students are either studying for Finals or packing to go home for the Holidays; however, it is not as cold in December as January and this might prompt a higher voter turn-out. Who knows? But one thing is for sure: We are looking at a general election campaign between February 6 - November 4; 9 full months of campaigning and Americans will finally get all of their questions answered.
August 8, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really out of control. We're looking at nearly a full year of endlessly repeated political bullshit from the nominees. We need to limit all campaigning to no more than 3 or 4 months.
August 8, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Longest General Election EVER.
More time for the character assassins to get to work.
Both candidates should make a pact to take next summer off and start up after the first convention.
August 8, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also like to that this is way too early, so I do agree that some limitations need to be added to this contest; seems that the GOP cannot wait to get their hands out of the Bush mess.
August 8, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we just roll the dice and whichever candidate gets the highest number wins. Any of our democrats will beat the stuffing out of the repugs.
August 8, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No! This is crazy. This should be the last election for the current primary system. States are going to keep pushing to be first, until we're basically in a perpetual election cycle.
Harold Ford has proposed a nat'l lottery, where a few states are chosen randomly, and that would be fair. Iowa and New Hampshire have dominated our election process long enough. With respect to those folks, it's time to change. In the spirit of democracy, give up your privileges!
August 8, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such arrogance from Iowa. And such stupidity on the part of both political parties to pander to the likes of them and New Hampshire.
We should either move to a national primary or regional primaries or some kind of lottery system to set the dates for primaries. Almost anything would be better than the system we foolishly keep in place.
Iowa and New Hampshire's overstated importance in our electoral system is an abomination. How is it Democracy when the same handful of states get major influence while other states have no say whatsoever?
August 8, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this election one up gamesmanship keeps on, we wil soon be holding the primaries....in 1968 again.
August 8, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No lottery -- award it to the states with the highest percentage of people voting in the general election.
That incentivizes voting and rewards states that take their civic duty seriously. New Hampshire and Iowa already do pretty well, so if they get their people to turn out they could keep their early caucus/primary, but I think Minnesota has had the highest percentage recently.
One problem is that it's hard for the less cohesive and high population states, but they don't make good early primary states anyway b/c the campaign then turns on TV ads.
August 8, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect, ohiomeister.
August 8, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a really great idea.
I was wondering if it could be taken a step further... combine voter turnout with measurements of a state's overall success. States that elect leaders that allow their states to prosper get to vote earlier. Meanwhile, States with budget deficits, high unemployment, corruption in local and state government, low productivity, high pollution, high crime, neglected infrastructure etc, move to the end of the line. It's not as workable and easy as your idea, though, and it's a bit subjective to measure a state's "success." But wouldn't it be nice to reward the voters who have a proven track record of selecting good leaders, and wouldn't it be good for the country for those voters to have an overstated role in the process if anyone does?
August 8, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My preference would be to ban any campaigning until January of the year of the election. Don't chose the nominees until early to mid summer and then a three to four month general election. A rotating series of "regional" primaries would be my preference as well. Anything to minimize the importance of any one state, especially if it doesn't really represent the composition of the country as a whole.
If we don't shorten the cycle then people are not going to believe government is useful. Perpetual politics is not only a waste of money, but bad government.
August 8, 2007 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, if New Hampshire was to go one week before South Carolina, rather than two, then Iowa could still be set in January.
August 8, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would also encourage bipartisanship at the state and local level, as the parties would have to work together to get out the vote, in order to get the benefits of an early caucus/primary, rather than having one side trying to suppress voters on the other side. States in which a party does so would be penalized with late primaries, and the party would risk incurring the wrath of the voters for doing so.
So hopefully, no more vote suppression monkey business from Secretaries of State like Ken Blackwell in Ohio or Katherine Harris in Florida.
August 8, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's still the problem that the most egregious GOP vote suppression schemes have been to kick people *off* the voter rolls, not prevent them from voting.
August 8, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. this gives an advantage to small population states. It is far easier to get 50% of 100 ppl to vote than it would be to get 50% of 10K people to vote. No, no. no....States who get 50 ppl to vote vs. those who get 2K should not be at the head of the line simply because they have far few people voting but 50% is more than 2%. NO, NO, NO
August 8, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink