Whatever happened to 'Democracy for America'?

POSTED BY Chris Broussard, 29 August 2007

Florida. Why is it always Florida? Recently, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature moved their presidential primaries up to Jan. 29, earlier than the Feb. 5 start date the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, set. As a result, the DNC, as it said it would, will not count the votes of Florida's delegates at next year's nominating convention.

It's a crafty move by the Republicans. By changing the date of primary elections, they have instigated an internal squabble in the Democratic Party, feeding into the talking point that the Democrats are a disorderly party that can't run itself, much less the country, AND driving a wedge between Florida and the eventual Democratic nominee. It's a master stroke, and the Florida State Democratic Party was helpless to stop it.

The DNC is upset because the switch messes up their plan to have early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. But even that plan is running into problems; South Carolina moved up their primary date, and Michigan is jumping ahead, too. Now, New Hampshire and Iowa have to move their primaries early, raising the very real possibility of a December primary in Iowa. These problems are symptoms of a larger problem with the primary system as a whole, and the jockeying won't stop until the system is changed.

The modern "system" of primaries emerged after the 1968 McGovern Commission recommended new standards for how convention delegates should be selected in the states. The primary system had been developing in the states since the Progressive era in the 1920s as a democratic reform to take presidential nominations out of "smoke-filled back rooms."

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined wield 24 Electoral College votes, three fewer than Florida alone. And yet, these four states are given an earlier, more important role in the selection of the next nominee. By having these four primaries early and stringing the rest out over half a year, the DNC imagines they are making it possible for a candidate without an established national identity to gain momentum and create a national groundswell.

But as it is won't to do, the world has changed since the 1960s. Mass media, cable TV, 24-hour news networks and the Internet have completely remade the face of presidential campaigning. Information about candidates is widely distributed and the field is well known before the first primary begins. In the 2004 campaign, we how the Internet can be harnessed to create a national movement out of a fledgling campaign (Howard Dean) and how a strong campaign in Iowa alone can launch an otherwise mediocre candidate into the lead. Why should one state have so much influence?

The primary system encourages candidates to ignore large swaths of the country in favor of small, idiosyncratic states and their special interests. The primaries have only succeeded in changing the cabal of special interests (from the party leadership to Iowa farmers) that select the nominee; they have not created a democratic process.

The Association of State Secretaries of State, the people responsible for conducting elections, has proposed a rotating primary, where the order of state voting by region would change each election cycle. But they leave in place the stranglehold Iowa and New Hampshire have on the process. It is a half-measure that avoids the root problem: that an asynchronous primary schedule is undemocratic.

The aspiration to make primaries more democratic is just as valid today as it was in 1968. The barriers to the flow of information that have historically justified a prolonged primary season no longer exist. The strung-out primary system is outdated and should be replaced by a true national primary.