The
ability to communicate one's thoughts to others in our nation has grown
exponentially over the past hundred years. From a time when families
huddled around a radio, if they owned one, to the introduction of
television into every home, to the age of personal computers and the
explosion of the internet, we now have the capacity to reach into the
minds of vast swaths of our population every second of every day.
From a day when a select few owned automobiles and travel
by train was the only viable alternative, we have been elevated into the
sky and can now criss-cross the country in several hours.
We have become omnipresent.
Yet we continue to treat our political process as if we were living in the age of the horse and buggy. Announcements by candidates of their decision to seek their
party's nomination for the highest office in our nation, seemingly
begins in earnest just after the mid-term elections.
On December
16, 2014, almost two years before we would elect our 46th President of
the United States, Jeb Bush advised us that he had formed an exploratory
committee regarding his possible insertion into the Republican race. It
was a badly kept secret for months that he would run, as he kept the
exploration fiction alive as long as possible, so he could skirt certain
rules regarding contributions to candidates. Finally, on June 15, 2015,
he put both feet into the water.
Others, still alive in our
primary process, informed us with joy and celebration of their joining
the fray on the following dates: March 4, 2015- Ben Carson; March 23,
2015-Ted Cruz; April 12, 2015- Hillary Clinton; April 13, 2015- Marco
Rubio; April 29, 2015, Bernie Sanders; June 16,2015- Donald Trump; John
Kasich, July 21, 2015.
Before the first ballot was cast, or more
precisely before the first caucus was held, we had spent more than a
half year, and in some instances almost a full year, in the constant
company of those who would be our king. Their words had been broadcast
in as many forums as one's imagination allowed. Each syllable was
recorded, scrutinized and dissected by those who are charged with
analyzing and interpreting. Their smiles had been reviewed, their frowns
had been considered. And yet, here we are with miles to go before we
(and they) sleep, when the primary process comes to a merciful
conclusion.
If you guessed that this method of choosing a party's
nominee was somewhere mandated, you would be mistaken. In fact, in the
first two presidential elections, the Electoral College was tasked with
determining each party's selection. Thereafter, until 1820, the members
of Congress made the selection. It was not until 1832 that a national
convention of delegates, chosen by we the public, became the accepted
method for nomination.
The concept of a national primary day was
first birthed over 100 years ago, well before the advent of the modern
age of communication. A bill was placed before Congress in 1911 for
consideration of having simultaneous casting in all jurisdictions. The
bill, and the many attempts thereafter to codify a rule for a one day
primary voting process have all failed.
But look at what has been
the result. The early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, become virtual
home to the candidates. John Kasich reported having undertaken the
arduous task of performing at over 100 town halls in the Granite state.
Chris Christie basically abandoned governing in New Jersey (some might
consider that a good thing) and then failed to garner enough support to
even stay in the race after a dismal showing in the first true primary
in the nation.
Meanwhile, my home state of New Jersey and
others, like California, don't have our primary day until June 7. In
most election years, this means that our votes simply don't count, as
the front-runner has historically gathered sufficient delegates at that
point to make my ballot, and those in many late states, of absolutely no
import. Thus, while the first jurisdictions are bombarded with
candidate love and affection, we are the unwanted step-child, ignored
and without consequence.
So why then do we not strongly
consider the realities of the 21st century, when each candidate has more
than sufficient time, in myriad ways, to make his or her case
simultaneously throughout our nation? Why not bring equal footing and
equal weight to what those in my state, or California, or New York, have
to say as to the candidate for each party?
Don't merely
mouth the words that our inclinations towards a candidate change over
time. Of course they do, but why can't all of us uniformly consider and
contemplate, rather than a select few?
There is more than
ample reason and justification to abandon a long since unnecessary and
antiquated system. Let's get out of our horse and buggies and come into
the world as it presently exists. Let's not just keep doing what we do,
but let's have a national primary day in the early part of the year in
which we hold our presidential election.
We need not require the absurd period of contemplation that now
prevails. By way of extreme alternative, on April 6, 2010, then prime
minister Gordon Brown announced that an election for that position would
be held one month later, on May 6, 2010. And so it did, with David
Cameron succeeding to that office.
I am not
suggesting such a radical revision, but clearly we do not need the time
frame presently in place, to make our selection for party nominee. Our
task is merely to pay more attention, sooner.