The virtues of the primary system

To the Editor:

Tyler Rosenbaum's '11 column ("Five problems with primaries," March 5) tries to evaluate primaries as if they were the general presidential election and, in doing so, labels many advantages of the primary system as defects.

Chief among these "problems," according to Rosenbaum, is that the delegate selection process is so lengthy, and he suggests instead that voting should take place on just one day. General elections take place after months of campaigning when the entire nation is bombarded with news, debates and advertisements from both major candidates. The candidates have the massive funds needed to travel the country and hire hundreds of staff. If primaries were to take place on one day, they would be a blatant popularity contest. Only candidates with significant name recognition or personal wealth would prevail.

Under the primary system, which starts with two small states, candidates need little money to connect with the voters and influence their votes. By winning or just doing well in a small state a candidate can build up the name recognition and funds necessary to compete through the rest of the states. With a national primary Bill Clinton would not have won in 1992, and John McCain would not have had a chance this year.

Joshua Kaplan '11

March 5