Is it fair that Iowa and New Hampshire always get to have their primaries first? It does emphasize direct exposure to candidates over fund-raising ability. But if we keep choosing the same states in the same order, year after year, certain issues like corn-based ethanol will receive favoritism they don't deserve, and certain demographics, such as African-Americans and the poor, will be continually under-represented.
This sense of unfairness had led to "front-loading," as more and more states push their primaries and caucuses earlier into the calendar year. Some states have scheduled their primaries so early on that the results cannot be counted in the national party conventions in late August or early September, and other states are even discussing moving their primaries to the previous year. While this may be somewhat helpful to early frontrunners in a Presidential race, it means that Presidential campaigns are more expensive and more about the money, and they are also more exhausting to candidates and electorate alike.
We need to fix our Presidential primary system (more below the fold).
Several different reform proposals have been put forward and I will attempt to capture them all here:
1. National Primary Day, proposed in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson. Everyone holds their primary on the same day, perhaps in February.
This plan would almost certainly increase salience and turnout in primaries and caucuses. More Americans would believe that they had a say in choosing the candidates for president. However, it would almost certainly minimize direct contact between candidates and voters. Campaigns would be waged on the national level, primarily through paid and free media, making it virtually impossible for candidates without personal fortune or establishment backing to compete. Depending upon the specifics of implementation (such as whether independents and swing-voters would be allowed to participate) a national primary day could keep party nominees more in line with mainstream views. Success in such a contest would provide strong evidence of electability. Party rank and file, and perhaps independent voters, would be able to exert their undiluted preferences on presidential nominees, an unsettling prospect for the party elites. Such a distribution of power could hamper the formation of core party platforms-often the hallmark of viable presidential candidates. Understandably, the parties are reluctant to discuss this sort of plan, partly because it would diffuse control over the selection of their nominee, undermining the exclusive and predictable hierarchy of conventions. An event of this magnitude would also render the conventions even more of a non-event than they are today.
(Center For Politics)
-----
2. The Delaware Plan, proposed to the RNC in 2000, this fine-tuning of an earlier plan called "Small States First - Large States Last" is voted in four monthly "pod" groupings).
The Delaware Plan relies on "backloading" the primary schedule, that is, allowing less populated states to go first and the most populated to go last, to avoid the negative outcomes discussed above. The Delaware Plan involves four "pods" or sets of primaries during which a section of states may hold their primary elections. Beginning the first Tuesday in March, the pods vote 30 days apart as follows:
POD 1: American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, Wyoming, District of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Puerto Rico. Population total: 14.8 million.
POD 2: Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, West Virginia, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Carolina. Population total: 33.5 million.
POD 3: Kentucky, Colorado, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Missouri, Washington, Indiana, Massachusetts. Population total: 64.9 million.
POD 4: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas, California. Population total: 160.6 million.
The purpose of the pod set-up is to allow the least populated states to vote first and thus wield influence over the primary campaigns, while the more populated states vote last.
The states voting towards the end of the schedule maintain significant influence over the primary process because of the large number of delegates that large states have to offer.
The gradual escalation of population size allows candidates without extensive campaign funds to build momentum from the smaller, earlier primaries so that he or she can potentially succeed in the larger primaries. The aim is to weaken the connection between big money and campaign success and to maintain public engagement throughout the primary season.
Since over 50% of the delegates would be decided in the final pod, the early states would not have the power to decide the candidacy. However, they would help grassroots campaign to flourish and allow lesser-known candidates a reasonable chance. They would have the ability to influence the direction of the primary season, and the power to thrust notable candidates and unlikely dark horses to the forefront of the race, but would not decide the ultimate outcome.
One added advantage of lengthening the primary season is that it gives the voters more time to evaluate the candidates, while also giving the candidates time to reach out to a more diverse collection of states instead of just the swing states or the traditional early primary states.
Spacing out the pods in 30-day intervals relieves some of the pressure to raise massive amounts of money in very short periods of time. A worthy candidate without adequate means to continue a 4-month campaign can rely on donors as he or she carries the smaller primaries.
The potential drawbacks of the Delaware Plan [include that] the pods consist of geographically separated states, which could force candidates to focus on a few particular markets within each pod.
Since the pods do not change, every election will likely favor the same few, more viable states within each pod. This would alienate the majority of the country, which is one of the problems the proposal is meant to solve.
On the other hand, the geographic distribution of the pod set-up could create four mini-national campaigns. It would be difficult for a campaign to concentrate efforts in any one place, so instead it might opt to wage an impersonal mini-national media campaign. Inundating states with a media campaign is an expensive strategy, which could spoil the chances of success for under-funded, yet worthy candidates.
An additional problem stemming for the geographic dispersion relates to the news cycle. Due to time differences, the East Coast news cycle airs hours before the West Coast. Campaign strategies might focus on the East Coast states so that news of the primary victors is known well before the polls close on the West Coast. This added publicity would reduce the attention paid to Western states.
(FairVote)
-----
3. The Interregional Primary Plan, proposed by Representative Sandy Levin in 2007.
The Interregional Primary Plan breaks the country up into 6 geographical regions. The primary schedule spreads across several months with a primary date on various Tuesdays between March and June. On each primary date, at least one state from each regions votes, such that varying views across America are represented on each election date. The country is also split into six sub-regions that vote together. The initial order of sub-regions is determined by a lottery that creates a rotating cycle for subsequent elections. In a 24-year cycle, every sub-region will have had an opportunity to lead off the primary schedule.
Levin’s plan would break down the country into six regions, with six-sub regions. The schedule is as follows:
-- Second Tuesday in March
-- First Tuesday in April
-- Fourth Tuesday in April
-- Second Tuesday in May
-- Fourth Tuesday in May
-- Second Tuesday in June
The regions and sub-regions would be broken down in the following:
Region 1: (A) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont; (B) Massachusetts; (C) Connecticut, Rhode Island; (D) Delaware, New Jersey; (E) New York; (F) Pennsylvania.
Region 2: (A) Maryland; (B) West Virginia; (C) Missouri; (D) Indiana; (E) Kentucky; (F) Tennessee.
Region 3: (A) Ohio; (B) Illinois; (C) Michigan; (D) Wisconsin; (E) Iowa; (F) Minnesota.
Region 4: (A) Texas; (B) Louisiana; (C) Arkansas, Oklahoma; (D) Colorado; (E) Kansas, Nebraska; (F) Arizona, New Mexico.
Region 5: (A) Virginia; (B) North Carolina; (C) South Carolina; (D) Florida; (E) Georgia; (F) Mississippi, Alabama.
Region 6: (A) California; (B) Washington; (C) Oregon; (D) Idaho, Nevada, Utah; (E) Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming; (F) Hawaii, Alaska.
FairVote
For the first Presidential election this Act would apply to, the Election Assistance Commission would determine by (random) lottery the order in which each sub-region (A, B, C, D, E, F) would hold its caucus or primary. If a state goes first during one cycle, it will go sixth (last) in the next cycle, and fifth in the following cycle, moving up one slot each cycle. During a 24-year rotation (6 Presidential elections), then, every state will have occupied every primary and caucus slot exactly once.
-----
4. The Rotating (Regional) Primary Plan, recommended by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) in 2000.
Under the proposal, the United States is divided into four regions - Northeast, Midwest, West, and South - having roughly the same number of votes in the Electoral College according to the 1990 census. The Northeast region (in red) comprises of 13 states and 127 electoral votes. The Midwest (in yellow) has a 129 electoral votes spread across 12 states. The 13 western states (in blue) have 119 electoral votes. The South is the largest region (in green) with a total of 163 electoral votes across 13 states.
In the first round, the primary schedule will be as follows:
- March - the Northeast
- April - the South
- May - the Midwest
- June - the West
Subsequently, the regions will start rotating. In the next election cycle, the South will move up to first position, followed by the Midwest, West, and the East. In the third round, the Midwest will go first, and so on.
Primaries in each state would be scheduled on or about the first Tuesday of the month assigned to its corresponding region, but not all states in a given region would hold their primaries on the same date.
An important feature of the plan is that it allows Iowa and New Hampshire to retain their lead positions in the primary schedule. These states still get to go first before the rest of the nation votes in primaries on a rotating basis.
The plan eliminates frontloading and extends the race, thereby allowing voters to vet candidates over a longer period of time, and allowing dark-horse candidates to pick up pace in the later stages.
The plan divides the primary calendar along regional lines, but it also gives equal weight to all regions as they all get to go first by turns. Over a span of a few election cycles, campaign attention will distribute equitably over all the regions, and no particular region will permanently hog the limelight.
The plan would, therefore, do away with the pressure of orchestrating a de facto national campaign – a major repercussion of the frontloading scenario. It would allow candidates to focus on regional issues, reduce campaign expenditure by enabling more focused spending, reduce campaign fatigue, and promote meaningful interaction between candidates and voters. Candidates will get to hear the concerns and complaints of regional voters from coast to coast, not just in one corner of the country. They will hear about the no-tax pledge in New Hampshire and ethanol policy in Iowa, but also about union concerns in the Great Lakes, cotton prices in the South, or immigration in the Southwestern border states
On the flip side, the plan retains the prerogative of Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, and the consequent problems. Candidates will continue to homestead and maintain permanent campaigns in these states.
In fact, the predictability of the primary calendar will increase the scope of homesteading beyond just these two states. Candidates will know years in advance which region will go first in a particular election cycle. Hence, they will be encouraged to homestead in an entire region, and time their presidential bids in accord with a regional order that is to their advantage. In all, homesteading might extend over several election cycles instead of just a few years.
(FairVote)
-----
5. The American (Graduated Random Primary) Plan proposed by political scientist Thomas Gangale in 2003 and supported by FairVote.
The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or The American Plan (sometimes known as the California Plan), is designed to begin with contests in small-population states, where candidates do not need tens of millions of dollars in order to compete. A wide field of presidential hopefuls will be competitive in the early going. A "minor candidate's" surprise successes in the early rounds, based more on the merit of the message than on massive amounts of money, will tend to attract money from larger numbers of small contributors for the campaign to spend in later rounds of primaries.
Thus there should be more longevity of candidacy, and more credible challengers to the "front-runners." However, as the campaign proceeds, the aggregate value of contested states becomes successively larger, requiring the expenditure of larger amounts of money in order to campaign effectively. A gradual weeding-out process occurs, as less-successful candidates drop out of the race.
The goal is for the process to produce a clear winner in the end, but only after all voices have had a chance to be heard.
The system features a schedule consisting of ten intervals, generally of two weeks, during which randomly selected states may hold their primaries.
In the first interval, states with a combined total of eight congressional districts would hold their primaries, caucuses, or conventions. This is approximately equal to the total number of congressional districts in Iowa (5) and New Hampshire (2), thus preserving the door-to-door "retail politicking."
Any state or combination of states amounting to a total of eight congressional districts could be in the first round of primaries and caucuses, including areas that have large proportions of people of color. The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, which also send delegates to both national conventions, are each counted as one district in this system.
In the second period--two weeks later--the eligibility number would increase to 16 (8 x 2). In the baseline design of the American Plan, every two weeks, the combined size of the contests would grow by eight congressional districts, until a combination of states totaling 80 congressional seats (8 x 10)--nearly one-fifth of the total--would be up for grabs in the tenth and last interval toward the end of June.
Because our biggest states are much more populous than the other states, this baseline design would allow California, which has 53 districts, to vote no earlier than the seventh interval, in which the eligibility number is 56 (8 x 7). To put California on equal footing with the other populous states, the order of Rounds 4 through 10 is staggered: 8, 16, 24, 56, 32, 64, 40, 72, 48, 80.
With this adjustment, the four most populous states are all eligible to vote by the fourth of ten rounds. Since only eleven percent of the American electorate votes in the first three intervals, these large states can figure early enough in the delegate selection process to have as meaningful an input as any state.
The America Plan treats all states even-handedly; on average, the smallest states are scheduled at random to vote after 32.5% of the country has voted, but for the largest states this figure is no higher than 45.5%, a spread of only 13 points.
(FairVote)
There are several important flaws in the American Plan, listed below.
The assignment of primaries, especially with the various optional features, can be very complicated, and difficult to explain to the general population.
Unlike the various regional primary plans, the American Plan does not take into account the costs of campaigning in geographically disparate states. One of the stated goals of the American Plan is to allow entry of less-funded candidates into the race, yet early primaries might easily include states spanning the whole country. Travel costs are a significant portion of a candidate's expenses.
Due to the nature of the American Plan, where varying-size states must be fit into varying-size primaries, the allocation process must necessarily go from largest to smallest. First, California must be allocated one of the four slots large enough to accommodate California, then the next-largest state, and so on.
When actually implementing such a scheme, certain-sized states will gain an advantage. Using the existing state weights as of 2008, the state of Michigan, with 15 congressional districts, will have a significantly higher chance of being in the earliest primaries. The odds of being in the first 5 primary blocks (about 31% of congressional districts) is about 39% for Michigan. Even more surprisingly, the odds of being in the first 3 primary blocks (about 11% of districts) is over 24% for Michigan. Conversely, the smallest of states, those with 4 districts or less, have a much smaller chance of being in the earlier primaries.
The advantage goes to states that have at just below a round multiple of 8, especially the smaller multiples of 8, 16, and 24. (This is due to the availability of the 8-, 16- and 24-district primary blocks, which will newly come open without having been filled yet.) The states with the greatest early advantages over similar-sized states are Pennsylvania and Illinois (19 districts, the first number below 24), Michigan (15 districts, just below 16) and Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, and Maryland (8 districts each). The states most disadvantaged are the ones with the fewest districts. This seems counter-intuitive at first, due to their small size. But since states must be allocated from largest to smallest, the smallest districts must wait until the 8-, 7-, 6-, 5-, etc. district states have had their chance, and it is likely that one of those will fill the first primary.
(Wikipedia)
Not quite random: m ap of average round selected for the American Plan. Red: 6.11-6.30, Orange: 6.31-6.60, Yellow: 6.61-6.80, Green: 6.81-7.10, Blue: 7.11-7.30.
-----
6. The (Modified) Rotating Regional Lottery Plan, first proposed by political scientist Larry Sabato in 2001, and modified slightly by the Center for Politics.
This plan divides the United States into four regions (identical to those in the Rotating Presidential Primary Plan. States in each region hold their nominating events in successive months, beginning in March and running through June.
An American Election Lottery determines the order in which the four regions will participate in the process. Run by a five-member nonpartisan part-time election lottery commission appointed by an organization such as the National Association of Secretaries of State, the new lottery could become the Powerball of politics. On a predetermined date approximately six months prior to the first contest (so as to allow the regions ample time to prepare for an election) a lottery with four colored balls representing the four regions on the color-coded primary map will be drawn, with the first region drawn going first and so on down the line.
Because it is a state-based system, each state will have the right to choose between a primary election and a caucus.
Because candidates are unable to know more than a few months in advance which region will lead off the calendar, homesteading is eliminated and candidates are forced to focus equally on all areas.
The nomination calendar kicks off in March and continues until June under this plan, giving the voters and candidates breathing room and reversing the trend toward front-loaded contests.
In addition, there will be a second lottery to pick two small states to begin the contest, as Iowa and New Hampshire do now. Under this composite plan, the months prior to the nominating contests would feature an initial lottery to determine assigned months for the regional primaries and a second lottery to pick from among the smallest states, for two lead-off contests to be held in February. This lottery would include all states and the District of Columbia with electoral votes no greater than a predetermined number-for example, seven-but it would not include island territories. While not particularly wedded to this number, it does make nearly half of the states eligible in 2004 and 2008 and allows both Iowa (7) and New Hampshire (4) the possibility of being selected.
(States with seven or less electoral votes: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.)
The Center For Politics believes this proposal provides an alternative to front-loading and injects greater excitement and variety into the nominating process by way of a lottery. Most importantly, the Center believes that this sort of system will increase the total number of citizens participating meaningfully in the nominating process.
(Center for Politics)
-----
We need to stop the rush to judgement. Determining the nominee too early hurts the parties. A short campaign does not fully vet nominees or issues. Writing a check has become more important than casting a vote. According to FairVote, since 1980, 13 of the 14 presidential nominees--in both parties--were those who raised the most money by December 31 of the previous year. And after the primaries, there are 4 months of dead air until the national convention.
The Vanishing Voter Project at Kennedy School of Government, has recommended that reforms to the Presidential primary system address the following requirements:
"A nominating process that remains competitive for a longer period of time in order to give the public a greater opportunity to engage the campaign and to become informed about the candidates."
"A briefer interval between the decisive contests and the conventions in order to help people sustain the levels of public engagement and information they had attained when the nominating campaign peaked."
"A system that increases the likelihood that voters in all states will have an effective voice in the selection of the nominees."
It's time to choose.
Sources used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www.fairvote.org/...
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/...