I am sick and tired of hearing presidential candidates whine about the presidential nominating system. Yes, I am talking mainly about Trump during this current election in the GOP party, but to a lesser degree Sanders in pursuit of the Democratic nomination, and Clinton in the (distant) past of 2008 (The Daily Caller). Didn’t they know what they were getting themselves into when they ran for their respective party’s nomination? Continue reading
I have usually thought of Congress as the most powerful branch, but most agree that title belongs to the Executive. (Also, the Legislative Branch is explained in Article I while the Executive is in Article II.) I always liked the fact that the aggregation, combination, and/or chaos of the House and the Senate is a good indicator of where the American people, for better or worse. Unfortunately, our electoral system usually biases/skews that representation due to redistricting, state size, or other factors. As it stands now, the Republican wave within the state houses and the governors’ mansions allowed them to unilaterally create districts to maximize the amount of Republicans for the upcoming decade, all else equal. (Look at USC’s Annenberg Center’s ReDistricting Game to get a fuller understanding of that particular process.) Of course Democrats did the same, but they really only had one state to make that difference in Illinois (Chicago Tribune). With the 2014 elections coming, no serious political analyst sees Democrats making a gain, especially in the midterm of the 2nd term of a President as evidenced in the below (President Clinton’s 2nd term was an exception to the rule).
Do we really need to pick presidents because one state says so? I realize that in our federalist system, states want to pick their presidents their own way, and that state parties in those states want to pick the nominees of their parties their own way, but why is it that Iowa has such an out-sized importance? Yes, I also know that they have burdened themselves with doing the vetting process, but this person from California would like to vet them myself. Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have to be the first nominating caucus, first primary, first-in-the-west, and first-in-the-south, respectively? I know this post just has questions, but I really wonder why. California, Texas, and New York should through their weight/population around to become more important just like Florida has. Or there should be a lot more bonus delegates awarded to those later states, not just the offending states to
lose half its convention delegates and be subject to other penalties.
This might be a biased opinion, but I am just trying to show my concern for a process which would seem undemocratic to any other country.
Additionally, I think that it is hilarious that Nevada has been getting so much bad publicity lately. Romney wanted to tether Nevada’s contest to New Hampshire so that they would presumably win two in a row after a perceived loss in Iowa. There wasn’t this much trouble with two parties last year, and the fact that it’s really just one party fighting it out makes the Republicans look inept, or look like they’re playing politics dirty as suggested by the Politico article “Nevada’s 2012 Primary Calendar Chaos: A Guide”. I really have to laugh because this is so ridiculous. There has been so much airtime on the positioning of the nominating contests that it has detracted from asking the candidates about the issues. And if Nevada just bowed down to mighty Florida, then everything might have been avoided (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66621.html). Well, I’m sure something else would have come up in place.