As the Oregon primary grows nearer, we are being bombarded with even more media coverage of the U.S. presidential candidates, as though something had changed in the last 24 hours. Already having been exposed to the incessant news coverage that preceded every other primary election, we are well informed of what’s been going on, but are still given every piece of news as if it were brand new. Enough already.
It’s safe to say that we, as voters, are already well informed about the main candidates, and most of us probably know who we want to vote for. At a time like this, we have to realize that there is no reason why we have a primary so late in the year, and really, there isn’t a point to holding primaries at different times depending on the state.
The election campaigns for the 2008 vote started early last year. Since then, we have had nonstop news coverage about the same issues, politicians, politician complaints and political smut. Every primary election brings something to the news: what election will be held where and who won. But that’s not all the media covers. We are also exposed to every ounce of drama that has either come up or been created in recent months, weeks or days and sometimes, even hours. In that way, voter preparation can’t be the excuse for forcing primaries to be so spread out from one another.
Since we have a federal government rather than a national government, I understand that states need to maintain their independence of voting state by state, as opposed to voting in one massive election. But it wouldn’t violate our rights as a state to have elections the same time as other states. If there was such a concern, why not even have them within a couple weeks of each other, or if necessary, within the same month. Even that little step would seriously cut down on the constant repetition that pretends to be our television news coverage.
There are fears that if states held elections at the same time, politicians would pay little or no attention to smaller states or states that have few delegates. Of course, that would be true, but we have to ask ourselves, how much attention do they give us anyway? Maybe in the days before television, voters had hope that candidates would come and campaign in their states long before the elections. Since we have television and the Internet, we can view our candidates anytime, anywhere.
For those people who still want to see a candidate in person, candidates manage to get to cities long before the election without any difficulty. Barack Obama came to Portland on March 21, soon followed by Hillary Clinton who made her appearance on April 5. Although we haven’t seen any sign of John McCain, we can assume he’s just gearing up for the big race in November.
If the main candidates can manage to make it to Oregon so long before the primary is held and potentially have their representatives follow up, how would having primaries on the same day in every state be any more challenging to them? It wouldn’t, especially considering how much money each campaign actually has.
Since the environment is the current focus trend at the moment, think about how much fuel and cost would be saved if a politician didn’t have to fly back and forth constantly for six months. If the primaries were held on the same day, the cost for the politician would go down, because he or she wouldn’t have to fly from place to place over and over again.
The Democrats are really the only party still campaigning for the primary elections right now. McCain already has enough votes and so many of his competitors have pulled out of the race. The Republicans haven’t even been campaigning in Oregon, but have been preparing for the battle against the Democrats in November.
When it comes down to it, holding primaries on different days is like being forced to do a root canal over and over again. It’s always the same, always painful, but you can’t get it over with all at once. Considering how much money each politician wastes on essentially re-campaigning over and over again, holding the primaries at the same time would substantially cut down on cost. Looking at the time, money, news coverage and attention that are wasted by this repetitive primary race, it would only make sense that primaries be held on the same day.