Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, partly as a statement on all this early primary craziness
Fairness alone -- a chance for the voters of these two large, important states to be part of the process -- in my opinion is reason enough to have contested votes in Florida and Michigan.
But another reason is to strike a blow against this whole trend toward front-loading the primaries and moving the dates so early in the election year.
There will always be a lot of candidates, except in those years when a semi-decent (or better) incumbent is running for term #2, which makes the whole primary season moot when it happens.
The job of the states early in the process will be to narrow the field, and the job of the later states will be to make the final determination. If you buy that premise, it makes a lot of sense for the early states to be smaller with cheaper media markets, leaving the latter states for those that survive the narrowing process.
Michigan and Florida could learn that they will get more attention(and probably more election-related tourism by the campaigns), by being closer to the end of the process than by cutting in line to be part of the beginning.
It's pretty sure to pay off for Pennsylvania!
And remind me why we as a country really need to know who the nominee will be until maybe just before the convention.