Too Many or Too Few?
By Alan Pell Crawford
Linda Chavez in The New York Times says primary elections aren’t helping the Republicans, who would benefit from “a greater role for elected officials in selecting the [presidential] nominee.”
Both parties, the former Reagan administration official writes, “suffer from primary electorates that differ significantly from the parties’ general election voters. Why should a sliver of the electorate in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have such a prominent role in picking the party’s standard bearer?”
‘Smoke Filled’ Paradise
Although we will never return to the “smoke filled rooms” of fond memory, it is nonetheless time, Chavez writes, to “rethink the current system. The populism that produced the Tea Party activists certainly energized the GOP in 2010. But populism may not be in the party’s best interest in the long run.” Multiple primaries and caucuses “in which only a fraction of the voters participate is neither the most democratic nor the best method for choosing good presidential nominees.”
But what, really, is Chavez complaining about? That too few people vote in primaries, or too many? Too few people voting in primaries might account for their unrepresentative character, a result she purports to disapprove. Too many, on the other hand, would constitute the “populism” she fears.
So which is it? Either way, her disdain for mere voters is apparent.
# # #
No comment to "Too Many or Too Few?"