Pros And Cons Of Front Downloading

Across the landscape of American history, elections have become a hallmark from which we draw legitimacy and secure our liberties. However, as time has progressed, our institutions have adopted practices that many have called into question. One of such practices is the act of frontloading, simply stated, frontloading is when states set their primaries early in the election season to try and influence the course of the subsequent voting as much as possible. Although many argue this practice gives states like Iowa and New Hampshire opportunity for relevance on a national stage, the detractors of this practice cite many of its glaring flaws. By allowing for frontloading both political parties seriously jeopardize their abilities to allow every candidate have a fair shot at victory, this practice supports big money candidates, subtly influences the course of the national dialogue and actively suppresses voter turnout. How can this system be rectified? Well, the most simple and effective answer would be for each party to hold one designated day for primaries and

In 2008, for instance, the Iowa caucus served as the major barometer for the entire Democratic Primary season. Rob Richie, of Fairvote.org, in an interview a week before the primary in 2008 explained, But then they also, because of a very compressed schedule — you know, here we are seven months before the convention, ten months before the November election, and it’s almost all over. And some people say if Clinton loses today, then it’s sort of over for her. But on February 5th, there really is the final decisive set of primaries where about half the country is voting. And if you don’t have a whole lot of money by now, even if you did surprisingly well in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s pretty tough to suddenly compete in the sort of airwave war that we’re going to see in just a few weeks. (Richie,