by Trapper John
I haven't been around a lot lately, so I'm catching up on a bunch of great posts. I see that DH hit on one of my fave games yesterday -- devising a better primary system. We, and others, have had this discussion scads of times over at dKos, but I never get sick of it.
Anyway, I figure that our problem is rooted in the fact that IA and NH are cemented in the popular mind as the be-all and end-all winnowers of the process. The problem is twofold -- first, IA and NH aren't close to being microcosms of the US, and second, they're only two states. Now, there's no question that someone at the beginning of the process has to be the winnower. IA and NH aren't the worst picks for the job, but they certainly aren't completely representative of the Democratic party -- neither is teeming with blacks, Latinos, or union members. Nor does either state really reflect all of today's America -- no major metropolitan areas, and therefore not a lot of urban, suburban, and exurban voters So I'd like to see some states that look more like the party, and the country, move up in the process. But simply moving a state like, say, MI, to the top of the list is still going to result in the other problem inherent in the current schedule -- where the voters of one, or maybe two, states essentially picks our standard-bearer. Even the most representative state has its own quirks -- MI Dems, for example, are probably less disposed to raising CAFE standards than the national party. So what I'd like to see is a process that brings in more states from more regions, including states that can better stand in for the nation as a whole. And I'd like to do it in a way that communicates to the public, and the political media, that this is a new kind of multi-week winnowing process. My hope is that we can create in the popular imagination the impression that the early primaries are more like a best-of-seven World Series than a winner-take-all Super Bowl. In so doing, we can change the expectations game, and cut way down on the "when are you going to get out" questions after Week 1.
Here's my plan. Eight states, from various regions, in a core opening group for 2008. Two states each week, grouped regionally, for the first four weeks -- all of January. If it works, we can rotate the eight states in '12. 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. By the end of the opening sequence, we should have whittled down the field enough that money won't be a major issue for any remaining candidates, so I wouldn't impose a strict schedule on the balance of the states. My proposed sked is below the fold.
Week 1: MI and IA. Keep IA in the game, while adding in a state that looks like a big portion of America and which is critical to any Dem majority.
Week 2: NH and NJ. Yeah, NJ is an expensive ad market, but it's small enough geographically for retail campaigning, and it's a savvy political state.
Week 3: LA and OK. Neither is a blue state in any sense of the word, but both have recently elected Dems to statewide office, and each represents a fairly individual political culture.
Week 4: NV and OR.
Whaddya think?
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:
Posted by: Bill Rehm | March 14, 2005 at 08:22
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."
Posted by: emptypockets | March 14, 2005 at 10:53
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.
Posted by: texas dem | March 14, 2005 at 19:15
"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.
Posted by: Petey | March 14, 2005 at 23:00
Interesting points, Petey. I'll respond when I'm more awake.
Posted by: Trapper John | March 15, 2005 at 00:27
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.
Posted by: emptypockets | March 15, 2005 at 14:12
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.
Posted by: shirah | March 21, 2005 at 21:13