Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> In the current system it's a matter of semeiotics.
>
> The reason New Hampshire matters is because New Hampshire is FIRST.
> The amount of money spent per inhabitant is huge compared to later
> on. As you correctly pointed out establishing an early lead means
> a candidate can more easily gather additional funds.
However, because NH's population is only 1.2 million, in a relatively small but
variable geographic area (~80 miles wide by ~250 tall), with only a handful of
TV stations, any candidate with a few hundred thousand bucks can gain
significant exposure early on (and because many other areas of the country are
watching via TV news, those candidates get lots of free exposure nationwide,
rather than having to pay for it). Failing to do this limits your choices in
Illinois as well as ours, because having primaries all the same day guarrantees
that only one or two candidates could cough up the funds to compete at that
level, at most. If that system had been in place last year, there would have
been no need of a primary, as only Bush would have had the funds to get exposure
in every state. Starting in smaller states first allows candidates that are not
bought and paid for by the multinationals to gain exposure and gives people real
choice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT