The Primary was over Four Years Ago
This isn’t anything you don’t already know, but it frustrates me to know that politics is flawed by design. Tomorrow Iowa caucuses after half a dozen candidates have spent millions of dollars wooing the votes of one of the smallest states in the nation. Soon after that it’ll be New Hampshire, and history says that it is likely that only a few states later the issue will be all but decided. With the state of the Republican party, that will inevitably mean the establishment candidate will be chosen, since the remaining candidates will split the votes of all those who won’t vote for Romney.
The Discomfort of Sitting on the Fence is Evident...
In that sense, we knew in June of 2008 who the Republican candidate would be in 2012, since all of us (well, those of us willing to be intellectually honest at least) knew that John McCain had no chance, with or without Sarah Palin. The only difference between 2008 and 2012 is that Romney, at least, stands a chance to win.
And so what if he does? Then we get four more years of establishment politics. Four more years of marketing, four more years of fascitalism, of kicking the can, of ignoring the problem.
Two years ago I interviewed three candidates for our district – Renacci, Miller, and Schiffer. Schiffer was a bit off, Miller a bit immature, and Renacci would win. I voted Renacci in the primary, and I’ve regretted it ever since. Renacci is establishment. Renacci is the old way. If I’d've had the courage of my convictions, I’d've voted for the man who most closely aligned with my principles. If I’d've had that courage, I’d've voted for Schiffer. He would have lost the primary, but at least I’d've stuck true to my word to myself and others.
This time, I won’t betray myself. I don’t know who I’ll vote for in the primary yet, but I know who I won’t: Romney. I don’t trust him, and I don’t like my candidate being chosen for me four years in advance.
(If we wanted to do it right, we’d have a national primary playoff system, whereby states would have three rounds of voting. The first round would consist of all available candidates. The second, a month later, would be the top four vote getters (tallied in a way that mirrors the electoral college). The final one, again a month later, would be the top 2 vote getters. Seems to me that’s the fair way to ensure that an ideology held by similar candidates isn’t washed out by virtue of a flawed system.)
