Primary election season baffles voters with muddled dates, meaningless contests
Meaningless? A photograph of the 2008 Iowa caucus (Source: Wikipedia)
Over the weekend, Maine held another GOP presidential straw poll (a “win” for Mitt Romney), and there was also yet another survey held at the conservative CPAC conference — one that Romney managed to capture.
But in a political season that has already tipped toward self-parody, journalists found themselves struggling (once again) to explain that none of these votes actually mean anything.
You win the nomination to be a presidential contender by gathering enough of your party’s committed voting delegates.
But the Maine “vote” was part of a complicated municipal caucus process that doesn’t lead to the allocation of any actual delegates. Not one. Delegates won’t actually be named and locked in from that state until the spring.
The same is true for balloting last week in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. In those contests, Rick Santorum claimed a lot of momentum but picked up exactly zero actual delegates.
Minnesota and Colorado’s contests were “non-binding.” And Missouri had no delegates at stake. What the heck?
Meanwhile, caucus procedures in Iowa and Nevada have come under harsh fire from Republicans for being outdated, exclusionary and downright inaccurate.
Here’s one top Republican official from New Jersey, quoted by Politico.
“All the candidates are out there slogging around at Christmastime and New Year’s, and then they produce a non-result result and they can’t even get the count right,” said David Norcross, a former Republican National Committee general counsel and New Jersey GOP committeeman.
Norcross told POLITICO that Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucuses were “numbingly stupid.”
“How foolish is it for everyone to go to Iowa the first week in January when there are no delegates selected and they can’t even get the vote right? It’s just a joke, it’s Iowa’s joke on you and all of us.”
Combine this muddled theater with the endless presidential debates and the fringey cast of GOP contenders, and it’s no wonder Republican interest in voting has dropped off significantly in 2012.
New York state, meanwhile, has its own version of primary-season madness
Currently, we’re slated to have three different primary votes, one on April 24th for the presidential race, another for congressional races on June 26th, and a third for state offices on September 11th.
It’s hard to imagine a better way to minimize civic interest than to force people to jump through so many hoops.
This seems like one chunk of our byzantine political system that might be open to reform. Both parties should hold straight-up primaries, with actual secret ballots cast by actual voters in actual polling places.
No more silly 19th century rituals, no more party bosses engineering junior-high popularity contests designed to sway news coverage.
Votes should be held on a consolidated calendar, so that all the primaries for local, state and Federal offices are conducted on the same day. And when votes are cast, they should actually matter.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
Amen. But it wont happen because the media spends so much time reporting on meaningless news and/or political propaganda. So someone with a couple million bucks to throw around thinks they can manipulate the MSM and through them voting public.
What happened to the horse race that was promised the past weekend dealing with the Dem convention and OWS people?
I wish it would let me “like” knucklehead’s comment more than once. It’s all a show for the media who’s obsessed with horse race bs.
Think about gargantuan amount of media attention the Iowa caucuses got from last summer up until the actual voting day. It was insane. And all that was for a contest that had at stake less than 1.1% (one point one percent) of the total delegates in the whole race. But the media needed something to babble on about for months, in lieu of real journalism.
Totally agree.
I think these mickey mouse things are also more corrupt. I mean Santorum won Iowa NOT Romney, but Romney got the credit and the instant bump in the polls from “winning” Iowa. The guy was right they can’t even get the count right and it is supposed to be important.
Perhaps if it were recognized as mindless twaddle, perpetrated by the one tenth of one percent to generate the illusion that the US of A is a free democratic country, it would make more sense.
Guys –
You can’t blame this one on the media. When big national parties hold actual votes, they will get covered. And why wouldn’t they?
It’s not our job to decide which rituals of our political system get covered and which don’t. (Though we are free to grumble about them…)
Meanwhile, I also think you guys are minimizing the actual issues that get covered and debated and talked about.
Yes, American politics often gets covered in horse-racey terms.
But you could publish a good-sized book every single day that aggregates widely disseminated, mainstream media coverage of serious issues.
And not just in highbrow journals like the Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc.
Check out NPR’s website today: You’ll find an in-depth look at how Massachusetts’ healthcare plan is actually working.
On the NY Times website, they’re looking at close ties between Mitt Romney and Washington lobbyists.
USA Today is exploring deep cuts in government spending at the state and local level.
Finally, Gary, I’m still working on my Democrat Worst Case Scenario story. More on that soon.
–Brian, NCPR
I could go on. This important, reasonably in-depth stuff is everywhere.
I read a couple of good articles in the Sunday paper yesterday. The problem is they weren’t “front page”, they were buried inside or “below the fold”. The MSM pushes to the front those things they know will sell and we are largely an entertainment driven society. The debates are a form of entertainment like the Oscars or the Grammys, but instead of congratulating one another they do mock verbal battle like the pro-wrestlers.
Brian is right that good reporting is out there but it won’t get pushed to the front as long as we have an electorate that cares more for sensation than information, as long as tabloids with photos of the current president consorting with space aliens on the cover, etc. Sadly, in a collective sense we get the democracy we deserve. Those who would have it otherwise are the real minority in America.
How about we just dispense with all the primaries and let everyone who want to run be on the ballot in November? In other words, let people run for office, not the parties.
Best part of this post: Changing New York’s system.
“Check out NPR’s website today: You’ll find an in-depth look at how Massachusetts’ healthcare plan is actually working.”
Yes, the idea there is to put up a whole bunch of quotes of Romney talking about how he supported the law in Massachusetts. The object here is to make sure that if there are any right wing types listening that they get mad and get out there for Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or whomever and keep the horses racing!
Any time that you see Romney start to make headway you can be sure that the focus will turn on how to knock him back and keep things interesting.
“It’s not our job to decide which rituals of our political system get covered and which don’t.”
No, but it is your prerogative to pick the stories to cover day to day. It looks like today (after Romeny’s win in Maine and his positive straw poll showing at CPAC) the thing to do was coincidentally run a story on the Massachusetts health care law that get’s right wingers all tied up in knots.
First, NPR (and affiliates) is an outlier. It’s really the only daily broadcast media that consistently does real journalism.
“It’s not our job to decide which rituals of our political system get covered and which don’t.”
I don’t wish to be rude but that’s pretty disingenuous. What you describe is EXACTLY the media’s job. It’s called editorial judgment, a pretty basic and essential part of journalism outlets that do not have unlimited time/space.
For example, take the ritual of the intraparty candidates debate. When the Green Party holds such a debate, the traditional media universally chooses to ignore it. When the Republican Party holds 300 candidates’ debates, the traditional media almost universally chooses to give each one blanket coverage.
The media’s not to blame for everything but it’s self-serving to claim it plays no role that isn’t either benign or noble. Brian M’s comments are also contradictory. If these contests are “meaningless” (your description), then why are they getting so much media coverage? Does the media really have no discretion, as your “it’s not our job” comment implies? Is it really obliged to cover that which is meaningless? If so, by whom? Either media outlets voluntarily choose to give lots of coverage to that which is meaningless (again, your adjective) or it has no free will and is not an independent agent. This is the logical deduction of your comments. Which is it?
Check out NPR’s website today: You’ll find an in-depth look at how Massachusetts’ healthcare plan is actually working.
This can’t be true. I heard just this morning that several speakers at CPAC showed that the Massachusetts’ healthcare plan does not work.
There are so many ways to define “working”… I am kidding.
“You can’t blame this one on the media.”
Yes I can!
Add up all the journalist hours devoted to covering what you yourself assert are meaningless races and tell me that each of those major media outlets, including NPR, couldn’t get the stories from individual states through journalists at local affiliates and use the national correspondents’ time (and the money it costs to send them all around the country) to give a better big picture to their customers.
The local reporters would probably even do a better job because they know their communities the best.
And I will pick on NPR specifically because I listen to it a lot, but doesn’t it seem like journalistic laziness to cover the horse race the same way it has been covered again and again? I am not calling individual reporters lazy but the whole system. Last week I heard a story on one of my favorite complaints about the news – the obsession with constant repetition of the Dow Jones status. The gist of the story was that the Dow Jones is essentially a meaningless piece of information on a day to day basis. But, you guessed it!, a few minutes later NPR reported on the Dow.
Dow is UP :-)
Dow is DOWN :-(
Apparently the producers at NPR don’t even listen to their own reporting. They have an idea of how the news is to be propagated and they dont want to change.
“Currently, we’re slated to have three different primary votes, one on April 24th for the presidential race, another for congressional races on June 26th, and a third for state offices on September 11th.”
While I commend you, Brian M, for getting this important bit of information out, how many New Yorkers do you suppose have any idea that there will be 3 primaries in our state? If it were in Alabama or Mississippi I would say that there was some sort of voter manipulation happening. But voter manipulation doesn’t happen in good ole’ New York, does it?
Knuck, like I said they report what folks want to hear. NPR’s “last word in business” is usually some ridiculous thing that rarely has anything to do with business but it is fun so I keep listening. The bottom line is that it is all just information you have to sort it out yourself.
There is a fine line between “voter manipulation” and making a persuasive argument to convince voters of a particular position. It is all just information, you better check your references.
There should be primaries and no caucuses. Also the presidential primaries occur much too early and should all be held on the same day, sometime in June or July sound good. I liked the September primary for state and local offices, I think June is much too early and doesnt get challengers enough time to collect petitions and campaign.
Why must campaigns start so early?
Brian Mann: “Check out NPR’s website today: You’ll find an in-depth look at how Massachusetts’ healthcare plan is actually working.”
Without even looking, I can predict that it’s going to be a “promote Romney” piece.
Then, I looked, and, Shazzam! It was a promote Romney piece.
———- from the NPR site ————–
Democrat Deval Patrick, says the health plan Romney launched is no abject failure — it’s working.
“I think it’s just been a terrific success,” Patrick said in an interview.
———————————————–
It’s too easy to predict. The liberal media wants to help Obama run against Mitt Romney.
I predict we will see many more favorable media pieces on Romney, until the point he becomes the nominee. Then, it will turn on a dime and the media will try to destroy him.
Too predictable.
JDM, did you read the piece? What part struck you as being false?
Walker, he didn’t say it was false he said it was favorable. Where did you read “false” in the comment?? You are just trying to get him going aren’t you?
Journalists like covering horse races because its easy and takes less effort. Most journalists are ill-informed on substantives issues, and, as a result, dont like reporting on substantive issues that much.
The lead up to the Iraq was a classic example. Journalists did not ask the tough decisions on that war and alleged basis provided for it, focusing instead on the political consequences of supporting or opposing it. Somewhat surprisingly, a handful of dissident conservatives (Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan) made the most persuasive arguments against the war.
Another example was during the 2008 presidential campaign where substantive discussion of health care got short shrift. Obama’s then proposed health care plan (which differed from the eventual one) was plainly unworkable to anyone with cursory knowledge of economics. (That is, Obama at the time opposed the individual mandate but supported stopping insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, which would have lead to substantially higher insurance costs for the individual market as disproportionately sicker individuals signed up for insurance and healthier ones opted out, forcing costs ever higher. But, alas, that was not discussed.)
In 2000, Bush proposed a big tax cut, but the true cost of the tax cut was unknown to the public as a quirk in tax law required annual fixes of the alternative minimum tax to make sure some didnt pay more in taxes as a result of the “cut.” But, again, the MSM, largely ignorant of the AMT, did not report on this.
I don’t blame the media, accept for the fact that the media reported a fraudulent result from Iowa, that Romney “won” when in fact he did not. The reporting of that victory gave him power in the race and the lead. If the actual correct vote had been reported Romney today might not even be in the race.
From that perspective the media and the incompetents that ran the Republican Iowa primary really really screwed up, or maybe not? Maybe it was part of what was supposed to happen?
Mervel,
The media doesn’t count the votes?
That’s where the term “drive-by” media gets its legs.
The main-stream media reports, incorrectly, that Romney won. When it is later found out to be in error, the media is no where to be found. They “drove by”.
Looks like Romney isn’t the heir-apparent, anyway. If he pulls out a win, it will be a come-from-behind.
Paul correct.
But the fact that a joke of a process was reported as national news which then gave the “winner” a big push into the rest of the primaries I think was a little shortsighted.
They could have investigated just how poorly the whole thing was run and how the vote count was essentially meaningless. I didn’t hear that, I heard Romney wins Iowa, and I heard that if you don’t win Iowa as a Republican you won’t win the nomination. This is a pretty big responsibility when in fact Romney didn’t win Iowa when in fact the whole thing was a muddled mess. The whole narrative of this election season would have been different if he had “lost” Iowa.
I think the idea that gets tossed out here occasionally — that the media favors Mitt Romney — is silly. There are, obviously, camps within the media that do favor Romney, especially a large cadre of conservative commentators and pundits.
And it’s also true that a lot of mainstream pundits simply got it wrong:
They thought Romney was sure to win — he had the money, the organization, the pedigree, the history as 2008’s also-ran — and it now appears that it’s not such a safe bet.
But the meme that most reporters somehow actually favor Romney ideologically or sympathetically — I just don’t buy it.
Here’s what journalists REALLY want. They want this primary race to continue. They want soap opera, they want competition, they want on-going narratives.
Within the media, it is in NO ONE’s interest for Romney to prevail quickly and easily.
Indeed, if there is a media bias, it’s this “let’s keep the melodrama” alive impulse.
Which in the end may hurt the GOP far more than a clean Romney victory might have.
–Brian, NCPR
Is there any media interest or investigations going on about the wrong vote count in Iowa?
I don’t think they like Romney, I just think they are often lazy and go for the easy story, group think is hard to break, the already written out narrative is easier than the complexities of reality.
The whole Republican Primary would be a different story right now if the headlines had been Santorum wins Iowa.
I don’t understand how anyone can belong to a political party. I have my own independent views.
“Here’s what journalists REALLY want. They want this primary race to continue. They want soap opera, they want competition, they want on-going narratives.”
That is why I made this comment above:
“Check out NPR’s website today: You’ll find an in-depth look at how Massachusetts’ healthcare plan is actually working.”
Yes, the idea there is to put up a whole bunch of quotes of Romney talking about how he supported the law in Massachusetts. The object here is to make sure that if there are any right wing types listening that they get mad and get out there for Santorum, Gingrich, Paul or whomever and keep the horses racing!
Any time that you see Romney start to make headway you can be sure that the focus will turn on how to knock him back and keep things interesting.
“It’s not our job to decide which rituals of our political system get covered and which don’t.”
No, but it is your prerogative to pick the stories to cover day to day. It looks like today (after Romeny’s win in Maine and his positive straw poll showing at CPAC) the thing to do was coincidentally run a story on the Massachusetts health care law that get’s right wingers all tied up in knots.
Do they do this kind of thing consciously? Probably not but if you want what Brain says the media wants. This is a good way to get it.
Why says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm
I don’t understand how anyone can belong to a political party. I have my own independent views.
So you can vote in a primary. You belong to a political party and still retain independent views.