« Abortion Politics Coming to Britain? | Main | Rejoice, for Urban Fetch is Back From the Dead! »

March 13, 2005

Comments

I do think the primary schedule should be reformed.

I have a different perspective, however. I think the primaries need to be optimized to maximize their impact on the general election.

I don't know enough about state demographics or voting patterns to make a detailed proposal, but I offer some ideas:

  • The primary race should remain competitive as close to the Dem convention as possible.

  • The primary schedule should be designed to maintain a 50 state "feel". I think regional primaries are, therefore, a bad idea.

  • Candidates who skip any states deserve to be penalized for it. If there are no regional primaries, this would be more likely to happen because of "Candidate X doesn't care about the South/the West/the Northeast because he skipped the Alabama/Colorado/New Hampshire primary earlier this year"

  • Super delegates should be scrapped or forced to vote for the candidate they initially endorse for the fitst vote at the convention, the same way regular delegates do.

  • Public events -- the debates, town hall meetings with all candidates, unity appearances with all candidates -- should be spread throughout the primary process.

I floated this crackpot idea on dKos a while back, and it wasn't hailed as a liberator, but I still like it. In addition to whichever state goes first in the primaries, hold on the same date an official nationwide DNC-sponsored straw poll over the web, with real security in place at a level that could be used for internet voting some day in the future.

This gives huge extra power to the netroots, which is to our particular advantage, but as importantly it dilutes the first day primary coverage on the network news, as in "Kerry won the first round of electoral votes in Iowa today, but Howard Dean placed first in the nationwide internet poll leaving him as a top contender as the primaries roll on. John Edwards was the second-place finisher in both Iowa and on-line, so it looks like we have a three-man race."

if I were in charge:

Week One -- Wisconsin only

Week Two -- Colorado only

Week Three -- just let New York City have a primary before the rest of the state

Week Four -- Tennessee

Week Five -- Oregon

Week Six -- Missouri

Week Seven -- Connecticut

Week Eight -- West Virginia

After that, each week have eight states spread across the country vote on the same day. Take the smaller states first, while making sure that some of the smallish states with big cities are thrown in so that urban areas get a voice. Save the real behemoths, CA IL TX FL PA, for the last day. Try to set the math so that it's hard for anyone to have a solid majority before the last couple of weeks.

"I don't want to make the early process too much of a budget-buster, but it can't hurt to actually reward candidates who do what it takes -- either by being imposing enough or inspiring enough -- to raise cash.  After all, we need cash to win in November."

Don't forget that Kerry couldn't raise a dime before Iowa, and he ended up being the first Dem to outraise the Republicans in a very long time.

For me, moving NJ up so far is a non-starter. I think there are important purposes served by keeping the early states retail affairs. An little known candidate with the right stuff should be able catch fire in front of the voters.

I floated a suggestion in DHinMI's thread for having a succession of Iowas and New Hampshires. The concept is to diminish the importance of those two states by having a multitude of small states. The idea would be to create a longer off-broadway roadshow before the candidates hit the big time of the delegate rich states.

Something along the lines of:

Week 1: Iowa
Week 2: South Carolina
Week 3: New Hampshire
Week 4: New Mexico
Week 5: Michigan
Week 6: Montana
Week 7: Northeast Region - NY, VT, RI, CT, MA, ME, NJ
Week 8: Western Region - CA, OR, WA, NV, ID, WY
Week 9: Southern Region...
Week 10 Midwest Region...

Theoretically, more than one candidate would win at least one of the early states, creating a real contest for the voters in the massive regional primaries to decide.

And by keeping the focus on a single state each week, it would allow candidates to try to make a real stand in their most favorable regions, while forcing the frontrunner to prove appeal throughout the country.

In the current system, if a candidate can win IA and NH, it's the immediate broadening out to multiple states that diffuses the race and allows that frontrunner to overwhelm the field.

But by having an extended roadshow, the race should still be open when the first massive regional contest comes along.

Interesting points, Petey. I'll respond when I'm more awake.

re: petey... iowa followed by south carolina for the first two primaries? I think I understand your points but your list of states seems like it would guarantee no progressive or even mildly leftist candidate got any momentum.

any thoughts on ordering the primary calendar by how close elections were in the last cycle? The idea would be to pick candidates that would swing as many swing states as possible... some formula like vote difference x electoral votes, and then set the primary calendar by that ranking.

of course that would also lock the non-swing states out of democracy at the primary level, as well as the way they are effectively ignored now during the general. In that, it would not be a big change though.

Rather than naming states, wouldn't it make more sense to play this game by first getting out our goals? I think they are just being assumed here.

One of mine is to make it possible to go into the convention with no one annointed. Conventions used to be this way not so many decades ago. Think about how much more interesting a convention would be if you didn't know who would come out the winner. And if the candidates actually had to make broad appeals.

It would also get rid of the fatuous comments and maybe commentators who treat speeches like mere performances - which they are now.

A second goal is to get lots of people involved in the primaries and keep them into the election and past it. Having spent last election day in a very poor minority precinct, I am opposed to moving to an election process where technology shuts out lots of voters. Geez these people are Americans too even if they don't have even a dial up connection at home.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad