Primary Reform: an idea

I've been thinking a lot about the problems with our current system of frontloaded primaries, and the more I think, the more the problem seems to be the fact that there is no disincentive for a state to have its primary as early as possible--to be relevant, you need to hold your primary before there is a clear winner, and therefore, there is every reason to hold your primary as early as possible.  This, of course, will probably just magnify the already disproportionate influence held by Iowa and New Hampshire.

Obviously, the best reform is to just break the monopoly of these two states, and for the national party to force a more prolonged schedule.  But it is getting increasingly clear that this simply won't happen.

But what if you simply made one reform, one that party insiders might likely not enjoy, either, but wouldn't particularly affect any states disproportionately?

How about simply making it so that a candidate, once (s)he has dropped out of the race, cannot pledge their candidates to another candidate on the first ballot?  The practice is pretty undemocratic--I go to the polls and vote for Gephardt (for example), I elect a delegate, but that delegate ends up voting for Kerry, due to the dynamics of the election in a state after mine.  My delegate should be forced to vote for Gephardt, regardless of what happens later.  

This, however, wouldn't keep delegates from dropping off of the ballot in later states, and that is the key.  This would give states an incentive to have later primaries--the first couple of states will have ballots cluttered with candidates that will eventually fall off of the map.  Hence, their first ballot delegate counts will contain large numbers of delegates that will go to non-viable candidates.  They will still have a great deal of influence, as they determine who has early momentum, but they will not invalidate the later states, who will only have the frontrunner and the challenger on their ballot, and thus, will have nearly all of their delegates count.  

Thus, you will have a set of states that 'vet' the candidates, and a set of states who actually determine the nominee.  This would also make the 'retail politics' angle of IA and NH more relevant--they are processing the large number of early candidates for later states' consideration.  The only real downside that I see in this is that it would greatly increase the chances of having a brokered election.  And I guess it might greatly increase the chances that a candidate drops out early, and thus make IA and NH even more important.  But I do wonder what effects a reform like this would have.

Tags: Early Primaries, Presidential elections, Primaries (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Re: Primary Reform: an idea
good thoughts.
I think they should have a pulling names thing.  Have Iowa and NH hold traditional roles but, then the rest have to go according to the slot they are put in from the name lottery.  States are going to get cheated with the front loading like this
by vwcat 2007-04-09 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Primary Reform: an idea

The primary/caucus system is broken.  Fortunately there's still time to fix it.  The former is obvious on its face.  Just look at all the states trying to move "up" in the calendar.  The latter may be less obvious, but there's nothing stopping the Democratic Party from creating a new system to select its candidate for President.

We need to find a way of selecting Presidential candidates which both preserves the opportunity of unknown candidates to be heard and grow, but doesn't place overwhelming power in a small number of unrepresentative states.

"One big primary" would preclude the former, maintaining the current system promotes the latter.

The Democratic Party, instead of compressing the process, should spread the process out more.

* have a January primary in a state chosen randomly from blue states in the bottom half by population (to keep costs relatively low to run a campaign),

* then two February primaries separated by at least two weeks from the January primary and from each other in states chosen randomly from those which were blue or within 5% of being blue in the last election.

* The rest of the primary season would be spread out though the beginning of June, with primaries grouped in batches randomly with the two week separation between groups.

In addition, we should eliminate the 15% threshold many states use to force a "winner" on the first ballot. All it does is take away the voices of those who vote for candidates who get fewer than 15%. If someone can't get to 50% + 1 without this kind of "cheating" written into the rules, maybe they're not the best candidate.

Any state that doesn't follow this schedule would lose its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  Would the states yelp?  Particularly Iowa and New Hampshire?  Sure.  Let them.  Governor Dean could remind them that he's the one who is making sure state parties get their fair share of party monies, now its time for "payback", a fairer system for selecting a candidate.

by rich kolker 2007-04-10 08:19AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads