Primary scheduling gone wrong

In a futile bid for relevancy, Florida has scheduled a very early primary in the 2008 presidential election.

I can see why people get tired of their primary votes not mattering. After the first few states, most of the candidates drop out that the apparent victor glides through the rest of the states. However, the value of the first primary being in a tiny state like New Hampshire, with a tiny population, is great. When the candidates can meet with people face to face, talk to them at length about issues, candidates like Jimmy Carter have a real chance.

Florida is a stupid place for an early primary. With 18 million people, you can't win an election with anything but huge amounts of money and TV advertising. That doesn't create good democracy. (Unless we have public funding of campaigns, which is a whole other blog post.)

What would make sense is a rotating primary. Every presidential cycle, you move the first primary. '08 is in New Hampshire, '12 is in Wyoming, '16 in South Carolina. Maybe 2024 in Alaska. Each cycle, you go to a different region of the country, so different voters get to ask about different issues, and the whole country gets to participate, instead of feeling like the Central Committee of Iowa and New Hampshire decide who's president of the rest of us. (I believe that the people of those 2 states take their responsibility seriously, but that doesn't remove the sense that we would like to have a voice as well.)

Hopefully, in the 15 smallest states, there is enough political and regional diversity to offer true variety from year to year. But the simple fact is that Florida, California, or any other state in the 30 most populous, should never be an early primary state. And that includes my home of Oregon. We're too big to do it right.

Boy, would I like to see the Republican primary season start in Washington DC.