Here is what is wrong with the Primary System

Ben Smith's Blog has some info today that really shows what is wrong with the current primary system.

Another reason to resent the early states.

Social scientists do
the math and conclude:
The voting weights implied by the estimated model
demonstrate that early voters have up to 20 times the influence of late voters
in the selection of candidates, demonstrating a significant departure from the
ideal of "one person, one vote."

Ya think?

Wonky summary
from Elisabeth Jacobs:
The model focuses on the role of “momentum” and
“social learning,” intuitive concepts suggesting that agents (aka voters) chose
actions sequentially, and are uncertain about the correct action, which depends
on the state of the world. People therefore try to learn the “correct” action
from the behavior of others. Moveover, if people are sufficiently unsure of the
true state of the world, they may actually ignore their own preferences and
simply follow the actions of others.

The current system makes Iowa and New Hampshire more important than the rest of the country. The problem with this is that those states are not reflective of America as a whole. These states should also never have become the first states every election cycle. I have advocated a new system that would combine small state and large states into blocks that would rotate placement in each election cycle. I believe that is the only true way to spread the power of early primaries around. It should not continue to be left to Iowa and New Hampshire to determine who can become the President of the United States.

Sphere: Related Content