The American electoral process has always faced tough criticism and growing questions. Problems with the Electoral College (see 2000 Presidential race, Florida), convention system, and party primaries have risen over the years. However, we center our focus on the hot-topic issue of presidential politics today: Primary front-loading. This term refers to the practice in several states to push their 2008 Presidential primaries forward, thus giving their citizens more say and influence in determining the eventual national candidates.

The key words to focus on here are “more say” and “influence” for judging the viability and legality of frontloading. The purpose and goal of a democratic system of government is to bestow upon each citizen an equal opportunity in determining party candidates. Prior to the upcoming presidential election, both parties had designated the states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina as bellwethers in the nominating process. Voters from these three rural and often isolated states had been given a grossly oversized voice in presidential campaigns for years. Can you imagine who would have emerged as national candidates for either party if the primaries were a one-day, nationwide event? Surely the likes of Jimmy Carter (Democrat- 1976) or George W. Bush (Republican- 2000) would have had a difficult time in a national primary.

It is quite illogical and borderline ridiculous to permit such electoral power to the voters of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. In the past, these caucuses have occurred in mid-January of the election year. If a candidate takes hold and gains momentum by winning one or more of these states, he or she is in a prime position to grab the nomination. We must understand that for the Republican Party, these states are typical conservative bases and have proven to be the death of more moderate candidates. A perfect example of this was the breakdown and eventual collapse of Senator John McCain’s quest for the 2000 GOP nomination. After defeating George W. Bush in New Hampshire, a surging McCain was ambushed by stalwart conservatives in South Carolina and Bush went on to capture the bid. The greater mass of American voters might have been deprived of a more experienced and well-rounded candidate, but the dubious primary system prevented this possibility.

It is easy to understand the frustration and angst of the states who will rebel against electoral norms in 2008. Candidates on both sides of the aisle have put all their focus and campaign resources into the early primary states. Democrats have even had to pander to the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, even though the bedrock of their party is found in urban areas along each coast. Since the nominations are determined early on, later primary states have been used exclusively as fundraising centers. As matter of fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that candidates have simply passed on through states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and even California in search of money. Voters and state leaders were tired of being trampled on by politicians that they have no sway or control in choosing. Together, these four coastal (and more diverse) states account for over 25% of the entire United States population.