Balkinization: A cost of federalism

A cost of federalism

Sandy Levinson

There is much to be said in favor of federalism--its promotion of diversity and the ability of states to serve as fabled 'little laboratories of experimentation." there is also the attraction of the principle of "subsidiarity," by which decisions should be made at the lowest level possible, not least becasue of the opportunity it will give to people to participate in actual decisionmaking in a way that is functionally impossible in a national government ostensibly representing 300,000,000 people. But, even putting such ominous modes of "diversity" as chattel slavery and subsequent segregation to one side, there is another obvious problem with federalism: States, like individuals, have no particular incentive to take the "national interest" into account when trying to maximize their own interests. This obvious fact is the principal defense of a post-New Deal strong national government, which exists, under this perspective, in substantial part to serve as a co-ordination mechanism designed to overcome the well-known "prisoner's dilemma" problems that come from fragmented decisionmaking by entities with competing interests.

So this is a long (and perhaps long-winded) introduction into a story in today's NYTimes by Adam Nagourney on the havoc being created, with regard to the 2008 presidential campaign, by the decisions of big states to move up their primaries, in order to try to play a greater part in the process of selection. Thus he writes

As many as four big states — California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey — are likely to move up their 2008 presidential primaries to early next February, further upending an already unsettled nominating process and forcing candidates of both parties to rethink their campaign strategies, party officials said Wednesday.

The changes, which seem all but certain to be enacted by state legislatures, mean that the presidential candidates face the prospect of going immediately from an ordered series of early contests in relatively small states in January to a single-day, coast-to-coast battlefield in February, encompassing some of the most expensive advertising markets in the nation.

The changes would appear to benefit well-financed and already familiar candidates and diminish the prospects of those with less money and name recognition going into such a highly compressed series of contests early next year.

It seems clear beyond doubt that this is not good news for the country at large. We would be far better off if the campaign could procede in some reasonable order, over several months, so that voters could actually learn more about the candidates' strengths and weaknesses, not to mention the problems with limiting the effective race to the extremely monied. But, of course, none of the four states in question has any incentive to be selfless. This is precisely why we need centralized co-ordinating authority.

For once, I don't blame George W. Bush for this most unfortunate development, though I do blame the blind faith in either "the market" or "federalism" and its tendency to overlook weaknesses in its single-minded emphasis on the strengths. In any case, it's unclear that anything can be done. It might even raise constitutional problems if Congress argued that it had power to regulate the primary schedules of ostensibly "private" political parties. And, clearly, the national parties themselves do not have the power to act, which would mean, among other things, cracking down on New Hampshire's obsession with keeping its privileged position regardless of "desert." So, once again, structures are central to outcomes.

In any event, it appears that we will know within thirteen months whether it will indeed be Hillary or Barack (or, my own favorite at this moment, Al), unless, of course, they split the vote and then we can look forward to a six-month hiatus waiting for the Convention.

Posted 12:06 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

I firmly disagree. As NJ resident, I have had to grind my teeth as the demographically unrepresentive states of NH, IA, the South, etc play a "king maker" roll in the presidential process.

No, I'm delighted NJ is moving to February instead of early June for the primaries. We're the most religiously diverse state in the nation--why should the Bible belt get the to pick my candidate?

# posted by

calugg : 1:27 PM

I agree with calugg. The current structure lets an absurdly unrepresentative electorate make the choice. Those of us who do live in representative states (I live in CA) end up with our choice restricted by that unfair process.

This does NOT mean CA has to go first. It does mean that the early primaries have to be structured to give a fair hearing to a reasonable sample of the electorate. Unless the national parties figure out a way to accomplish that goal, the system will remain open to gamesmanship.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:39 PM

I know this is going to sound totally off the wall, but every four years we seem to get hung up on choosing our next President, which becomes a glamour contest of personalities. I find this annoying, and every four years I wish it were just not very important who the President is going to be. I would rather be able to focus on which party is going to be in power, and have some confidence that that is going to matter.

GYL

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:42 PM

Interesting article. That lineup would appear to assist Guliani, McCain and Obama in about that order.

By jumping ahead of the southern Super Tuesday, such a lineup would favor more middle of the road candidates with good name recognition or the money to buy it.

Guliani is leading McCain in early Iowa and NH polls and could be coming off of two wins when this cluster of states comes up. The southern Super Tuesday was supposed to be the social conservative firewall against Guliani. However, nearly all of these larger states are winnable by Guliani, especially NJ and FL (with all of its NY refugees).

McCain actually has worse problems with the cultural conservatives and was derailed in SC during his last run. Moreover, he could be on the losing end in the first two contests to Guliani. McCain runs well in midwest states like IL and has a shot at CA.

Now that Hillary has actually announced, the polling has her trouncing Obama and everyone else. Obama has to like having his home state early in the primary season and the left could hurt Hillary in a state like CA.

Overall, this is bad news for the Dems. They do not want to face Guliani in the general election and risk losing strongholds like NY, NJ and CN. The result would be an electoral landslide.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:49 PM

I couldn't agree more with calugg and Mark Field about the "absurd[ity]" of placing so much power in the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire Primary, and then the primaries in some Southern states (that, by and large, are not going to vote Democratic anyway in the general election, a point of interest, of course, only to Democrats).

so I have no objection at all to one or even two of the big states moving their primaries up to February, and as a former resident and voter in New Jeresey, why shouldn't NJ be that state? My objection is to the fact that all of the big states are in a "race to the front" which is dysfunctional for the country at large. There should be some coordination from the center that would, for example, rotate the honor, if that's what it is, of coming early, and so on...

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 2:33 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by

rothmatisseko : 3:44 PM

rothmatisseko said...

I don't believe Hillary's leading. Please give a citation.

19 points in a Time poll released today...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/
0,8599,1582130,00.html

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:49 PM

I don't believe Hillary's leading. Please give a citation.

[thanks for the link bart]

Hillary's already lied in her campaign. She said she's leading the netroots primary, whatever that is. But a dKos poll has her at 4%. The dKos poll is the one that should matter given the power of that blog over the last several years; if there is such a thing as a netroots primary Obama's winning it, with Clark and Edwards close behind. The mainstream media have already declared Hillary the winner because the owners of those media prefer her corporatist policies. She also has no charisma without Bill standing behind her.

# posted by

rothmatisseko : 3:54 PM

rothmatisseko said...

I would not put too much stock in the netroots of either party. They may be fervent ideologues, but their numbers are tiny and their far left and right ideologies do not match the electorate at large.

The righty blogs are all agog over Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, neither of whom have a chance in hell of winning. The GOP is a largely "my turn in line" party when it comes to presidential nominations. The candidate leading in the polls about now in the election cycle nearly has a lock on the nomination. What makes this cycle interesting, though, is that Guliani and McCain are essentially tied in the polls, although Guliani leads by a few points in most polls of likely GOP voters which I have seen. The nominee will be one of these two men.

The Dems are a much more interesting party because they do manage to nominate someone unexpected out of left field on occasion instead of the establishment candidate.

I am hardly a Hillary fan. However, she does have the name connection to the last Dem president in a generation along with a ton of money and organization. Clinton will be exceedingly difficult to beat in the Dem primaries unless she makes a major mistake along the lines of Kerry's "botched joke." I don't see her piling up big majorities, but she should have comfortable pluralities until the other candidate fall out.

Perversely, Hillary's high negatives may actually help her by bringing in so many candidates who think that she is beatable that all the entrants will split up the anti Hillary vote and allow her to coast to victory.

If this were Hillary against just Obama, then you could have an upset. However, it is Hillary against Obama, Edwards, Gore (probably) and a host of dwarves who will split up the left's vote.

Beyond the vote fracturing, Obama is a rank amateur with very little experience, organization, money or any issue which is likely to overcome the Clinton machine. He is simply the anti Hillary and that is not enough to win.

Its way early and I could be wrong because the Dems are harder to predict than the staid conservative GOP, but I don't see the upset yet.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:23 PM

allow me to join the ranks of those who sit back in dismay watching candidates who i like drop out because they didn't do well in relatively small states like iowa and new hampshire early on in the process, meaning my voice doesn't get heard in the primaries. there is an inordinate amount of time spent by candidates courting these states. voters in larger, more influential states end up getting virtually no say in the process.

while there is something to be said for tradition, and another to be said for order, what is wrong with a national primary day, somewhere around may or june that would force the candidates to really come up with a national winning strategy, and allow voters in all states some sort of voice in the process?

# posted by

phg : 5:27 PM

what is wrong with a national primary day, somewhere around may or june that would force the candidates to really come up with a national winning strategy, and allow voters in all states some sort of voice in the process?

I'd even settle for a series of group primaries, each one designed to fairly reflect national demographics.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:20 PM

These primaries amount to an arms race, with each state or region pushing to get ahead. The result is unending pressure for earlier and earlier primaries, which drags out the election season longer and longer. And our election season is much too long already. Like all arms races, mutual non-aggression pacts are not stable because it is in everyone's interest to break them. I do not have any answers to what is a serious problem.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 7:55 PM

I wish it were otherwise, but I don't think a woman or an African-American Democratic candidate can win a general election, irrespective of what respondents tell pollsters as a function of social desirability.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:46 PM

Since primaries already are public enough that they cannot discriminate by race etc., it is unclear if they are not public enough to the degree that states and/or Congress can regulate the day on which they are set, at least if it can be shown that the alternative is the troubling results offered in the post. And, Congress' power over federal elections provides a possible balance to the "federalism problem" as well.

# posted by

Joe : 12:23 AM

What would happen if some state passed a law that it would hold its primaries ahead of every other state, and that if any other state moved its primary up, it would move up further?

Isn't that where wer'e heading?

# posted by

boldface : 10:12 AM