OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 should enforce the changes, which would entail the implementation of new federal campaign funding (i.e. matching funds). The advantages of the national primary would include: a) The length of the grueling and expensive campaign season would be reduced, b) the influence of each states's primary would be more equitable, c) the system would lend more rationality to the entire process, and d) it could focus voter attention upon the candidates and the entire process more. Convention/National Primary This would be the most radical change of the reform options, says Haskell. Reformers suggest that the national party conventions be held prior to the primaries. The traditional state selection events would be held leading up to the national convention, where two or three candidates would be chosen to campaign for the national primary held the first week of September. The field of candidates would be narrowed, enabling the public to choose from a smaller, better-known set. Other advantages which have been cited include: It would preserve and promote a strong role for the national parties while maintaining the voter's voice; it would provide a reinstatement of peer review (party insiders could exercise their judgement and influence); and the campaign season would be shorter and less expensive. Regional Primaries The regional primary system is similar to the current system, except that all states would be required to participate in five ten-state primaries. Each of the five primaries would be spaced three weeks apart, from the first week of March to the end of May. This would require the exertion of Congress' or the national parties' influence in designating and scheduling the regional primaries. Supporters of this concept point to the end of the frontloading of primaries and the more rational, orderly consideration of candidates that an organized regional system would bring. It also would end the early domination by the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus. In opposition, some political scientists have asserted that a regional primary system is not much better than the eclectic system in place currently. Regional primary campaigns have shown to be characterized by mass media, rather than the small town visits that early primaries receive (134-135). Conclusion Much research has been conducted in the search for reforms of the presidential nomination process. However, no one understands sufficiently the implications of changing the entire system (Gurian 1998), and therefore overall reform proposals seem to be limited to just that, proposals. States must seek to increase their political clout in presidential politics within the existing, arguably Darwinian, structure. Because the formation of a regional primary is feasible within the current nomination system, this article has sought to explore the implications of the implementation of the Rocky Mountain Primary. If a regional primary were to be formed in the West, comparisons with the South's Super Tuesday suggest that clear advantages and distinct disadvantages would be manifest. Studies have shown that media coverage actually decreases on a state-by-state basis within a regional primary-and the decrease in media attention occurs with the entire region as well, because states are lumped together. However, media attention in presidential politics is so low here that most of the intermountain west states do not have much to lose. The west as a united region could have its issues more cohesively packaged, and therefore more readily covered by the media. Studies also suggest that mass media campaigning increases when candidates must campaign in a large multi-state region. In fact, proponents of the regional primary tout the lower costs of advertising in the west as incentives to candidates to campaign more in the region. One might presume that the west would receive more exposure to the candidates, which would lead to more informed voters. However, more advertising on western TV sets is not the primary goal of western leaders-the west wants more of a voice. Another implication of regional campaigning is "tarmac-to-tarmac" campaign stops. Brief candidate interviews at airports will not increase the west's political influence. However, the leadership of Governor Leavitt and the rising prominence of Salt Lake City could encourage candidates to schedule campaign stops in Utah. California's earlier primary will play a large role in scheduling the Rocky Mountain Primary. If California's primary is held before the rest of the western states, it's possible that the west already will have been spoken for, and candidates will not pay attention to the rest of the west. On the other hand, perhaps the western states could position themselves to capitalize on California's draw upon candidates and bring more candidate and media attention to the Rockies. It does not appear that the state of Utah would benefit much, individually, from a regional primary. Yet, the push for a western regional primary has come from the west as a region, and the western states could benefit from more media attention to western issues in general. The western region, because of its increased block of unified delegates, could draw more media and candidate attention to western issues. The degree of success of the regional primary could hinge on its relationship to the California primary: California could either draw candidates to the west and increase the importance of intermountain west states, or it could speak for the entire west, and stand alone as the "bellwether for the rest." The best specific timing for the Western Primary really will not be known until all the states have finalized their plans for primaries. The Joint Task Force which meets this fall must seek to understand the effects of scheduling the western primary either before or after California's presidential primary. Findings from this article's analysis suggest that perhaps key to any state's influence in presidential candidate nominations are the number of delegates and how early the delegate 47 |