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?
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?
