In the comments of the
story on primary reform, I made the suggestion that rather than suggest solutions first and hashing out what's good or bad about them, we use an engineering approach and focus on requirements for the system first, then see what we can come up with that addresses those requirements. That thread's already headed in other directions, so I thought I'd throw it up here and see if folks are willing to give their input. Because if there's one thing that Kossians are more than willing to do, it's give input.
So for instance, what I'm interested in putting together here is a list of what we want out of a new primary system, and what pitfalls we should be watching out for, along the lines of:
The primary process should:
- give candidates the exposure, and voters the time, to get to know them and their positions
- allow for a sizable field early
- narrow the field as the process moves forward
- have battle-tested the candidate by the end of the process
The primary process shouldn't:
- winnow out candidates early for lack of initial campaign funding.
- give any one or two states inordinate influence
- allow the largest states too much influence
You get the idea. What I'm looking for here is not the reformed system, but rather the requirements that a hypothetical system would fulfill. Obviously, no system is perfect, and when it comes time to discuss the merits of one system over the others, we should expect that not every requirement will be perfectly met, there's always trade-offs in the design process.
So what do you think, what are the most important issues and features that a hypothetically brand new primary system would address and provide?
And, as promised, here's a very strange picture of Bush getting his zipper checked.