California Reasserts Power in Presidential Politics
Posted by george on 15th March 2007
.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill to move California’s presidential primary from June to the first Tuesday in February.
Listen to the governor’s remarks from KCBC radio
The move is intended to give the most populous state more power in the presidential primary process. With a primary in June, California comes at the end of the primary season, when the candidates are generally already decided. Instead it is Iowa with its caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, both in January, that can make or break a candidate.
But not only are both states small, they are both relatively conservative, and not representative of the American population. By putting all candidates through the Iowa/New Hampshire filter, critics argue, the choice of party frontrunners is skewed to the right.
Californians say their role in the process has been to contribute large amounts of money, almost all of which is spent outside the state, for advertising in the earlier primaries. But Iowa and New Hampshire say that because they are small states, candidates are forced to meet one-on-one with many voters, something that would be impossible in the larger states.
Because other states are also considering moving their primaries to February 5 next year, that date seems likely to become the new “Super Tuesday”, when presidential candidacies are more or less determined.
But there is a darker reason for changing the California primary. The February date is just for the presidential primary, the regular primary remains in June. Californians in February will also be voting on a new plan for term limits, which would allow current office-holders to run again. If it is approved, as expected, many incumbents would be able to file to run in the June primary.
Had there been no February primary, the referendum would have been in June, and incumbents would have been out of luck.
Counties are objecting to the increased cost of holding an extra election. The new law establishes that they are to be reimbursed by the state, but the clause is ambiguous as to when.
Posted in USA, Video clips | No Comments »





![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://radiowood.com/images/valid-rss.png)





