Under the Same Sun

Published 1/23/08

By: Kasey Henricks

Three weeks into the primary season and Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan have potentially made a decision on behalf of the rest of America. Thanks.

If democracy is defined as resting sole authority in the people, the U.S. needs to reconsider its process of electing representatives.

Our electoral process has essentially approved these three states to prematurely narrow the presidential candidates before the other 47 states (Wyoming is somewhat of an exception) have exercised their opportunity to vote.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan compose nearly four percent of the nation’s population. Does this percentage constitute a representative voice for America? Also, these states can collectively be described as being middle-to-upper-middle class, northern-to-northeastern, average-educated white people.

This small sample of people influences and, in some ways, determines the electoral process. In conclusion, decisions are being made by some states for other states without their input. And these decisions are motivated by the interests of a select fraction within the population.

On the Democratic end, the potential candidates have been narrowed from eight to five candidates. And many Democratic voters consider this race to have only two horses remaining-Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As for the Republican race, some uncertainty looms. Four GOP candidates have bowed out but seven still remain. Though many political analysts describe this race as being wide-open, the early primaries and Iowa caucus have allowed Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain a head start that may prove difficult for others to overcome.

For political campaigns, momentum is everything. Voters look to the results of early races to help determine how they will vote. If a person is unsure of which candidate to support, many will pay extra attention to early elections and caucuses to help inform a decision about which candidates are contenders and which ones are not. Obama and Rudy Giuliani are prime examples. Six months ago, many considered Obama to be an inexperienced underdog and not likely to win the Democratic ticket. Fast forward to present day, the Illinois senator has become a serious contender and is considered by many as the candidate to beat. On the other end of the political spectrum is Giuliani. His showing has been reduced to merely having a name on the ballot. Giuliani’s fourth and sixth place showings have discouraged many from viewing “America’s mayor” as being an electable candidate.

The case of Giuliani raises a strong point. Should votes be motivated by choosing a candidate that possesses the most “electability?” Or should voting be motivated by selecting a candidate that best represents a person’s views? Staggered primaries and caucuses have a tendency to promote the candidate most likely to be elected, but not necessarily the best candidate.

And how do candidates elevate their status to be considered electable? Money is one factor in this equation. It’s no coincidence that the winners of these early primary races have been the candidates raising the most dollars. According to CNN, Clinton and Obama have raised nearly $91 and $80 million, respectively. As for the Republican Party, Romney and McCain are among the top fundraisers with nearly $63 and $32 million. Giuliani ranks second among the GOP’s top money-getters raising nearly $47 million but this seems to be the only campaign strategy working out for the New Yorker.

Becoming president is expensive. A typical political tactic is to pour as much cash as possible into the first few races. If candidates build a strong presence early, a following is established and the other competitors’ funds are diminished.

Staggering caucuses and elections present a hiccup in the democratic process. A few states highly influence and somewhat determine the presidency. And because of these earlier elections, presidential candidates are forced to concentrate their cash in these few states. For some contenders, after this initial cash is spent, so are they. The race transforms from a battle of ideas to a contest of who has the deepest pockets.

One alternative to remedy this problem is to establish a national primary election and caucus day. All voters would hit the ballot at the same time allowing for a more authentic vote, free from outside influence and premature candidate selection.

No election results could influence how voters check their ballot. And campaign funds would have to be dispersed throughout the country making it more difficult for headliner candidates to capitalize on outbidding lower-tiered candidates. The sheer size and diversity within our country would force candidates to spread out their funds, opening the door for other candidates to strategically compete better. This proposal would potentially decentralize the process of electing presidential candidates, making it more representative of the peoples’ interests.

Given the current state of elections and caucuses, one thing is certain: America should reconsider its ideas of democracy and how it should be practiced.