Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Democratic Party Primaries - a better way
This is a good time to start thinking about how the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary cycle should work. We certainly should know that this year's cycle is not the best way to do it. So, I decided to give it a shot myself.
First: my complaints about this year's cycle.
Iowa and New Hampshire going first -why?
A 6 month cycle - why?
A mix of rules for caucuses and primaries instead of standardized rules.
Too long a "recess" between some elections.
No reason to allow individual states to schedule their own primaries.
My system will be a three month cycle, starting in March 2012 and ending with May 2012. This means 50 primaries or caucuses in 13 weeks of Tuesdays. To simplify this, assume all of the primaries will be on Tuesday. I would break down the schedule to 48 weeks of 4 primaries per week, and one week with 2 primaries. And, no weeks off until they are all done.
There is no logical reason to hold the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary before any other state gets a chance at it. But, I doubt that there would be support for changing this, so I would hold both of those events on the first Tuesday.
Each of the remaining Tuesdays would have a primary or caucus from four different areas of the country, with four different state delegation sizes. For example, the second Tuesday could be New York, N. Dakota, Alabama and New Mexico. The next week might have Texas, Vermont, Missouri and Oregon. And, on by fours to the end.
This should greatly limit the pandering that now goes on when a candidate spends a whole month in one state promising the moon to try to win that state. It keeps the voters interest involved throughout, or until someone has a majority of the delegates. And, it eliminates the mad scramble of states to be among the first primaries. Of course the schedule would change each election cycle.
Is there a better way to schedule the Primaries? And, what about caucuses - should they even be allowed, and under what rules?
Comments (9)
You have to give candidates time to campaign in the states or else it puts the candidates with less money and name recognition at a disadvantage.
May 9, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
by having 4 at a time in different areas of the country you make it hard to visit each state. i would prefer states vote in regional blocks, maybe a little larger than 4 states, with maybe a little more time between blocks. maybe 8 groups of 6 or 7 states with 2 weeks between blocks (at least for the early blocks)
or maybe have stupid tuesday at the end?
6 voting dates, the first 5 just a few states followed by everyone else on the last date:
1,2,4,4,4,35
May 10, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure the barnstorming of a state is the proper way to do this, so I want the candidates to be limited in how much time they can spend in each state. If a candidate is so unknown that this would be a major handicap I doubt that he should be the candidate. Similarly, a candidate who can't arouse support in the way of thousands of donors, isn't ready for this either.
Since the first election would be in March, that gives all of the candidates time to roam the nation, attending rallies, fundraisers, etc. to familiarize the voters with them.
Spreading out the elections in equal small groups, once a week allows a candidate to build some momentum too, and allows a dunce like the former NYC mayor to stick his foot in his mouth enough times to lose out in all of the later elections. That's my argument against having a large number of elections on one day.
May 10, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
One week in between all the states' primaries would turn any presidential candidate's head to mush.
I think a 4-state first primary vote would not be a bad idea. Keep the first two (Iowa and NH) and add maybe AZ and some northern mid-west state.
Give it two weeks after those first four states have had a go, and then add a few more, and then the rest within a two-month period.
Don't forget, primary elections were set up so that America -- across the board -- could get to know the candidates.
May 10, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of "turning the candidates head into mush". I don't like a candidate changing their campaign to fit whatever state he is in at the time. That is the pandering I want to eliminate. Good voters don't just attend a rally and decide to support a candidate based on what he said at the rally. A good voter is aware of what is being said all over the country by the candidates.
The sole advantage to voters in having a spread out primary, versus a one day national primary, is that it allow for an evolving contest, where one candidate begins to stand out by honing his approach, proving himself to be a vote getter and a fund raiser. So, I want it spread out evenly across a reasonable time frame.
May 10, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am a bit more concerned with the process of awarding delegates. Some have advocated for a winner-take-all just like the general election. I actually hate this idea because the strategy of ignoring the "little" or blood red states would not allow us to employ a 50-state strategy to much success. How do we gain supporters, and congressional seats if it is our policy to discount the states that a d
Democratic candidate "cannot win in the fall"? While I like proportionate representation (and think we should do it in the general as well), the delegate math should not be as mysterious as it is, with different networks and websites showing slightly different totals. Plus, why do we need super-delegates? Does it really make sense that "party leaders" get a super-vote? That does not seem too democratic to me.
I prefer a four-month rotating schedule, a healthy mix of delegate-rich and delegate-poor states from all regions of the country, one "super tuesday" per month until it is over. I advocate eliminating primaries from any U.S. territory that does not get a vote in the general. And I don't care if a state does primaries or caucuses, both have advantages and disadvantages. (Though the Texas two-step is a bit ridiculous if you ask me).
May 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with "super tuesdays" is that it rushes the process too much, encouraging voters to want to jump on the winning bandwagon instead of making a reasoned choice. But, I would prefer about 4 super tuesdays, with a good mix, by region and state size, to the schedule we had this year.
I agree that winner take all is not the way to count delegates, and the actual process of awarding delegates should be transparent and consistent among the states. Super delegates are fine with me, as long as they are less numerous than they are now. I don't like the idea of the "supers" overriding the popular vote. And, I also see no logic in letting territories which can't vote in the general election have a say in the primaries.
May 10, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
First some hard facts:
1. The DNC doesn't set when primaries/caucuses occur.
2. The state pays for the election, not the DNC, so they shouldn't have a say in whether or not a state has a primary or caucus.
3. The states sets the rules for whether they hold a primary or caucus.
4. All of this is why some states hold votes on Saturdays; to ensure that citizens can vote since most people won't have to work on a Saturday.
Your option of having 4 states from 4 corners is expensive. By limiting the time between primaries you a) don't give the candidates time to raise money to go galavanting across the country, b) don't give the state's party machines time to ramp up, c) don't give the candidates enough time to woo the state's parties, d) don't give the candidates enough time to talk to voters and e) you don't give the candidates time to fine-tune their campaigns.
We saw the effects of your approach on Super Tuesday. The candidates spent inordinate amounts of time in IA, NH, SC and NV. Super Tuesday, IIRC, 13 states around the country voted and the candidates did not have enough time to campaign. I believe Obama came to Los Angeles twice between Dec. and Feb. 5th. Clinton was here 3 times, two of those times were for private fundraisers with rich people. McCain was here once, not counting Palm Springs and Orange County.
May 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the current primary system is run by the states, and that led to Michigan and Florida losing their say in the process. It also led to the Iowa caucus almost being scheduled for last year. Iowa corn farmers gain inordinate power through this process, and as a result we have a huge ethanol industry, an inefficient use of dwindling petroleum reserves.
It is time for the Democrats to fish or cut bait: either they want the people to decide who their candidate is, in which case a rational primary election process must be devised so that occurs. Or, they want a convention of state delegations to decide who the candidate will be, in which case the states can select their delegates however and whenever they wish. I see the current system as being a collection of the worst aspects of both methods.
May 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment