The announcement that Clark and Lieberman won’t partipate in the Iowa caucus has renewed debate over the primary process in nomating presidential candidates. The Note complains of the capriciousness of the press corp in deciding when a candidate’s withdrawal hurts the Iowa caucus rather than the candidate. Calpundit says the Iowa-first setup distorts the candidates’ positions and hurts them in the long run for a presidential race. What’s amazing is that there’s no good reason for the nominating process as it currently stands, except a) that’s how things have always been done and changing them is difficult; and b) some version of the Magic Town mentality is at work, equating Iowa and New Hampshire with small-town, heartland America. To the extent that we’re talking more A than B and the distorting effects are few, maybe it’s fine to keep the nominating process. But if we’re under any illusion that these early-voting states are bellweather states, then we may need to debate more how nomination occurs. After all, unlike the Electoral College, the parties’ processes aren’t constitutionally proscribed.
No comments have been added to this post yet.