Race to the bottom

Wed Aug 15 12:20:44 PDT 2007

I'm not sure all that much is at stake here. Realistically, however the nominees are chosen, the parties will want to pick their nominees at least a few months before the election, probably by May or June. Early primaries, at most, push the decision back by about 3-4 months (assuming a clear winner emerges very early in February or so, which is earlier than usually happens). I'm skeptical that those 3-4 months make any significant difference in the quality of the nominee.

While (for somewhat different reasons than Sandy), I'm not a big fan of George W. Bush, I highly doubt that his nomination would in any way have been altered with a different primary schedule. Bush was the leading choice of  both conservative primary voters AND party elites. Barring a Bush campaign screwup, he was going to win the 2000 nomination no matter what the process was. Had the nominee been decided in the old-fashioned smoke-filled rooms, he would have gotten it too.

Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339

-------------- next part --------------
I agree that it is not a good idea to push the dates up.  However, the
underlying reason it is such a bad idea is that we are stuck with the
folks who are chosen 9 months before the general election.  We feel that
we are stuck with the major party candidates because the two-party
system forecloses anyone else from winning. Of course, that is not
particularly related to federalism.  If Congress can find a
constitutional way to move the primary season back, one problem might be
solved. 

The clumping of primaries is a more complicated issue.  If there is
value to having an extended primary season, maybe federalism is a
problem given that many big states will want to have their primaries
quite early, before the nomination is wrapped up.  However, in a race
where there may be no prohibitive winner after the first cluster of
primaries, some states may rationally wish to be in the second or third
cluster.  On the other hand, this arguably is not a state/federalism
problem.  If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party changed how
primary results feed into delegate counts and the actual nomination,
states might not try to be particularly strategic about their primaries
at all.   

As for money, clustering early primaries harms candidates who wanted to
raise enough money to make a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire then
raise more in the aftermath.  However, for a number of years, the mantra
in presidential politics has been: "Raise as much as you can as early as
you can."  Given that, I am not sure the timing of the primaries matters
too much to the top several candidates with respect to money, except
that they have to start raising money a bit earlier.     

At the end of the day, I agree with Sandy that really early primaries
are not a good idea.  However, I do not think that taking away state
autonomy over their primaries (the core federalism issue) solves the
problems that really concern us.

-Hank        

Henry L. Chambers, Jr., Professor of Law

University of Richmond School of Law

28 Westhampton Way

Richmond, VA 23173

804-289-8199

________________________________

From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at law.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Chambers, Hank
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Race to the bottom

Hand Chambers writes:  "More importantly though is my question about
what is the problem with the rejiggering of the primary system by the
states. " 

It appears to me that the problem is that the nominating season may very
well be over at least nine months before the actual election, which is
problematic in itself, given the possibility that ensuing events might
lead to reassessment of the fit between candidates and what we want in a
president (would any sane person have voted for the ignoramus George W.
Bush in 2000 if he/she had believed that foreign policy would be the
defining venue of the ensuing presidency?)  There is also the obvious
fact that pushing up the schedule makes money ever more important.  Theo
nly explanation for the actions of Florida, California, etc. (all of
which are "rational") is their understandable desire to clip the power
of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina in the nominating process;
not a single person has said it's a good idea in itself to pusn up the
dates.  Does Hank believe otherwise?

sandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070815/7b1b5727/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.