A Frontloaded Primary: Where Has the Democracy Gone?

Last week, Iowa announced January 3rd as the new date for its Republican caucus, a strategic move forward that upholds the state’s traditional position as first in the nation in deciding the presidential nominee. New Hampshire–usually the first primary state nationwide–is debating a similar move forward although final changes have yet to be announced (for an updated primary schedule, click here). The scrambling of primary dates comes as a response to a unique trend in this year’s 2008 presidential elections: a number of states have moved their schedules forward–ahead of the original dates set by both Iowa and New Hampshire–in hopes of having a greater influence on the election’s outcome. As a result, the primary season is heavily frontloaded and a political war among states is creating as much or more media attention than the actual campaign. Candidates are focusing on manipulating their image to cater to the state they are addressing, political parties are trying to regain control over the primary schedule, and the race to be the nation’s leader is turning into a game of survival-of-the-fittest. Frontloading may indeed bring more attention to certain states, but is not an effective way to elect the leader of the free world. In fact, it may even impact the democratic process.

A move forward in the primary schedule leads to more state-specific attention from both the candidates and the media. For example, Michigan (a state characterized by its industrialized labor force, high unemployment and a powerful auto industry) currently faces a complicated union strike, and is struggling with state budget reform. By moving the primary from its customary February position to January 15th, Governor Jennifer Granholm put Michigan’s social issues in the national spotlight. Her argument, like that of all states seeking to follow in Michigan’s footsteps, is somewhat valid. These states are geographically larger, more populated, and more diverse than both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Carol Hunger, a reporter from the Des Moines Register disagrees (and for obvious reason): “For one thing, Iowa is changing. Like many states, it has a growing Hispanic population. It's not as homogeneous as it once was. But I think the most important thing is, is a defense of retail politics wherever you start it. Here in Iowa, candidates get out and really meet the people. They're in cafes; they're in libraries; they're at the fairgrounds in each county. Many of the candidates have appeared in all 99 counties in Iowa. It gives candidates that might be considered a long shot a chance to make a name for themselves." Her argument may be enlarged upon: candidates who do poorly in the early primaries are soon weeded out, and may therefore not even end up on the ballot in the later primaries. This means that voters may lose the chance to choose from all the candidates.

Another concern of frontloading is that the presidential candidates are being forced to deal with the challenges that arise from an intense primary schedule. It is increasingly harder for candidates to make an impact in what are considered the “key states,” now larger in number than in previous elections. If candidates spend too much time in one state, they risk compromising their image in another. In prior elections, when primaries were spread out over a period of three to four months, candidates were able to reestablish their finances between primaries; now, with a heavy frontloaded schedule, the election process will most likely take place in four to five week intervals. Because winning in the first few states is crucial, candidates are forced to move quickly from one state to another. Thus, the increase in competition for money and media time has led to greater political warfare between parties and candidates alike.

A frontloaded primary season gives a greater number of states an equal chance to influence the election, a seemingly more democratic approach. However, media attention is not so much focused on the issues at hand, but on which candidate will survive this unique battleground financially and which campaign team is tough enough to come out alive. The Republican and Democratic National Parties, moreover, are only aggravating this debate. With little influence on voter choice in the primary elections, they are scheming to punish states which have moved ahead of their nationally assigned schedule, or to at least nullify the impact. For example, the DNC has requested that all candidates take their names off the primary ballots in Michigan. And, surprisingly, four have agreed (including Democratic front-runners Obama and Edwards, featured above). Ultimately, the primary season may come down to a question of whom to alienate, because no matter what the outcome, one party or another will be unhappy. How is this democratic?

Obviously the current nomination procedure trivializes the influence of states with late primaries. The election of the president should be a democratic process, but only on paper do we see a primary system set up to allow that. By providing citizens the ability to vote for their choice of presidential nominee (either through a caucus, convention, or primary election), the nation systematically allows for equal representation. Unfortunately, politics is negatively influencing democracy. When the media focus on campaign strategies rather than relevant social issues, and in turn, candidates focus on money rather than their campaigns, the end result is a dysfunctional election process. Additionally, frontloading does not necessarily deliver as promised–look at Michigan’s loss of key candidates on their Democratic primary ballot. The only answer may be reform. Why not develop a primary schedule whereby states rotate in and out of the starting spot? It is an issue worthy of our attention; some sort of change is necessary in order to ensure a more democratic approach to choosing a president. Unfortunately, any change may have to wait for 2012. For this presidential campaign, it is all money and politics. Where is the campaign for substance?