"But how can this have happened?" worried executives demand, mopping their fevered brows, "what's caused this seismic collapse?"
"It's that damned shopping survey they conducted in Peoria ," says the harassed Chairman, "where our products were voted inferior to Costco."
"But only fifty people answered the poll" say the other Directors, "that's hardly representative enough to pass judgment on our quality!"
"It doesn't need to be," says the harassed Chairman, "just look at the publicity they got and the effect on business confidence!"
Ridiculous I know but (and forgive what might be a poor analogy) but that's rather how I perceive this arcane system of primaries and caucuses that go towards electing the next President of the United States and, of course, leader of the so called free world. Now a number of good things came out of last nights Iowa caucus, not least the fact that Democrats in a rural, predominantly white state were prepared, in great numbers, to choose a black man, Barack Obama, as their choice. An underdog also got chosen by the Republicans. The caucus itself was a wonderful transparent exercise in democracy, particularly that of the Democrats who huddled together in chosen corners as if picking the new school prefect, whereas the Republicans went for a secret ballot in each.
The effect of this is what worries me, because it is disproportionate. Already the pundits are saying, this is a devastating blow to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic surge of both political and financial confidence is likely to move to Mr. Obama. Similarly Mike Huckabee's win has been seen to undermine the campaigns of the other Republican candidates.
But why...and particularly as a consequence of a result in Iowa where the process is completely different from any other state, the electorate is demographically unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, the whole state has a population of only 2.5 million in a country of 300 million AND....perhaps most significantly...of that small population just about 10% came to the caucuses to register their preferences...a turn out which would be considered derisory in a UK council election.
So just a handful of Iowa voters have set a ball rolling which has been picked up by the politicians, the media, the influential party backers...and that mere handful of people could be instrumental in sending the chances of a Presidential candidate into oblivion.
The whole principle of 'states rights' is fundamental to the political process in the United States and thus very little control of how states administer their electoral machinery is subject to Federal Government interference. This degree of independence has been crucial to the entire principle of a true federation of states and one has to say, as an outsider, that there is much to be admired in the political principle which has driven this huge nation since its inception.
But I would seriously inquire, particularly with the arrival of the technological age, whether the laissez-faire principles which allowed the states to determine their own method and their own dates for returning delegates to the national convention which ultimately picks the candidate does any favours to the American political process. There is now so much media interest, so much pressure, so many signs read from early indicators that surely it is not fair that two small states like Iowa and New Hampshire should effectively be a national sounding board for who is chosen to stand for the respective parties as candidate for President of the United States.
I understand that the principle has changed over the years and that super Tuesday, where about 20 states hold their primaries is a fairly recent 1980s innovation
Would it not be fairer to everyone, public and politicians alike, if America therefore devised a Super-Duper Tuesday where all 50 states held their primaries or caucuses at the same time? I am not suggesting some federal regimentation of the procedure each state uses...I know that is completely beyond the pale to suggest such a thing...but I do believe the unfairness lies, not in the method of selection, but the consequent and ridiculous degree of political importance given to these early returns, particularly from such a tiny sample of opinion as about 10-12% of a state with less than 1% of America's entire population!! In other words, Hillary Clinton's prospects, just for example, have been damaged by less than 0.1% of the population of the US..and that seems ridiculous.
Some kind of synchronisation would remove this 'investor confidence' element at a stroke which I think is weighting the contest unfairly. It would also mean a change in campaigning habit where candidates would have to weigh up where they went to curry support with a lot of sophisticated planning but surely this would provide a more balanced and less 'outsider influenced' reflection of voter opinion?
No comments:
Post a Comment