A Catch-22 in Assigning Primary Delegates

As the 2008 election looms ever closer, states are maneuvering in various ways to gain influence. The goal for New York, as a March 31, 2007, editorial in The New York Times put it, should be to “have a chance to play a major role in choosing their party’s nominee” and “make the candidates address New York’s issues.” The editorial continues, “The candidates always rave about ethanol in Iowa. If they had to hunt for votes in the Bronx and on Long Island, they might talk more about mass transportation and middle-income housing.” The principal action taken by New York’s legislature to accomplish these goals was to move the date of the primary election forward from March to February. In the past, much of the political dust had already settled by the time New York had its primary, and so there were few practical consequences—except to second what had already been decided by the earlier states. 2008 will be different, as the biggest states have moved their primaries to February, setting up a “Super Tuesday,” when it is likely the candidates for the two major parties will be determined. But will merely moving the primary date forward be sufficient? The Times does not think so. The editorial argues the following: