Toward a Fair and Equitable Nominating Process

With states like Florida and Michigan thumbing their noses at the DNC, there is obviously a problem with our nominating process.  What would provoke these states to "take cuts" and jump the line?  Could it be that the DNC's nominating process is nonsensical and ridiculous?  Yes.

There is no reason for Iowa and New Hampshire, or even Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, to have a lock on the nominating process.  It is stupid, on its face.  Michigan has nearly the population of all of these states, combined.  Florida has over 7 million more people than all of these states, combined.  

It is only common sense that these states (among others) would want their voices to be heard.  We are electing the POTUS.  It's kind of important.  And even a "beauty contest" will be of more consequence for Florida and Michigan voters compared to the (non-existent) influence they have held in the past.  Additionally, regardless of who the Democratic nominee may be, s/he will insist on recognizing and seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The DNC, rather than issuing empty and absurd threats - especially to Florida Democrats - that "your votes won't count," needs to get to work on a fair and equitable nominating process.  It's too late for this cycle, but we can and should be spared their inept and embarrassing behavior in the 2012 contest.

So, what to do?  Well, our "leaders" at the DNC should be able to figure something out.  But, since they cannot, apparently, I'll give it a whirl.  

I do not think a single, nationwide, primary/caucus date makes any sense.  Such a thing would, by default, benefit whoever had the most money.

I would rather divide the 50 states plus the District of Columbia (let's leave Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc., aside for now) into 5 groupings:

Northeast: CT, DE, DC, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and VT.  Est. Population: 62 million.  States: 11 plus DC.

Southeast: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN and VA.  Est. Population: 65 million.  States: 8.

Midwest: IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH, WV, and WI.  Est Population: 63 million.  States: 9.

Great Plains, Southwest and The Rockies: AR, CO, IA, ID, KS, LA, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, WY and UT.  Est. Population: 54.5 million.  States: 15.

West and Pacific: AK, AZ, CA, HI, NV, OR and WA.  Est. Population: 56.3 million.  States: 7.

The groups are within 10 million of each other population-wise, and each is somewhat balanced geographically, which would (hopefully) allow regional concerns to be addressed by the candidates.  

What about the voting order?  At the conclusion of each by-election (the next one will be in 2010), the DNC should conduct a lottery to determine the primary/caucus order of the 5 groupings above.  Group One votes 1/15/12.  Group Two votes 2/1/12.  Group Three votes 2/15/12.  Group Four votes 3/1/12.  Group Five votes 3/15/12.  Whichever group that votes first in 2012 cannot vote first again in 2016, and so on.

Of course, this would require action by each state.  That could be problematic.  But, our current situation is not fair, is not equitable, and (obviously) cannot hold.  Worse still, it makes the Democratic Party seem inept and incapable of managing its own affairs (much less those of the country).  

Again, the DNC should get to work on devising something instead of issuing absurd, empty threats to "rogue" states.  

•  The party of equality

  and fairness should have a fair and equitable nominating system.

  by HarveyMilk on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 12:52:27 PM PDT

  •  very nice diary!

    Electoral reform should start from within the party.

    When disaffected repubs and indies look in with envy at the way we elect our leaders we will attract more members andor force the other parties to adapt, or adopt.

    Either way electoral reform moves forward.

    by Number5 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:03:09 PM PDT

•  Like it! But let's move it back a bit...

  start on Feb. 1 and give a month between votes. It would be over by May. Candidates need more time inbetween. This should have been done before this year, but the problem is the system resistance to change with Iowa and NH requiring themselves to be first. Dean should have pushed hard for this. Now it's a mess.

  by IndySteve on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:20:48 PM PDT

•  Being from disenfranchised Michigan -

  I have to say - "I like your plan"
  Meanwhile, the DNC should not be surprised to see a huge drop in support from Michigan and Florida - which can only hurt the party.  Most of us won't even bother with the primary.  It is tough to feel that our party has abandoned us when we need to focus on our devestated economy and huge unemployment rate in this state. We the people are not responsible for the idiots in Lansing who have decided to antagonize the DNC leadership in this pissing match.

  by moose67 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:23:07 PM PDT

  •  But FL and MI agreed to the rules...and then

    decided to violate the rules. I have little sympathy for this. You and all of us should have pushed to change it like this diary last year.

    by IndySteve on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:24:36 PM PDT

    •  Regardless,

      how do you feel about the DNC telling Florida Democrats that their votes don't count?  

      A little absurd, isn't it?

      by HarveyMilk on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:29:23 PM PDT

      •  Only

        absurd, when viewed from your perspective of reform.

        But what is the point of ever bothering with reform if you cant trust the states to honor the reforms?

        Cart before the horse imo.

        Sure the result sucks.

        by Number5 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

  •  I don't blame Lansing.

    Since many of Michigan's ills stem from federal policies (i.e., NAFTA), I'd be pissed if our state leadership hadn't done everything within their power to give Michanders a greater voice at the national level.

    by HarveyMilk on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:27:17 PM PDT

•  Why divide it up regionally?

  Divide them into 5 groups of 12 by lot every 4 years.  Everyone has a shot at being early or late, regardless of region.

  Figure out the order of the primaries one year before the Presidential election.  With any luck, it would get rid of what is now turning into a 3-year presidential campaign.

  I live in Michigan and, while I think we deserve a shot at going early, I'm pissed at the hacks that passed this primary law.  The law provides that each party (and nobody else) get a list of everyone who voted in their primary.  So much for a secret ballot.

  by gsbadj on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:30:18 PM PDT

•  you make a decent point

  the rationale that i've heard for the early small state primaries is that they afford the locals a closer look. there is something to that as well. i don't understand why candidates don't do more campaigning outside of iowa & new hampshire. surely a big crowd in any large metropolis shows well on television no matter where you see it.

  by rasbobbo on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:35:24 PM PDT

•  Arguments in Favor of Small State First

  They boil down to two things: first, the candidate is forced to practice retail politics - meet people face to face for a more personal vetting by the voters; and second, that it gives the less well monied candidates a chance to get ahead partly because retail politics is cheaper.

  And this is why those arguments are stupid - they presuppose that the primary has to be held statewide on the same day. If we subdivide the states up into smaller units then the argument in favor of small states disappears. In fact, we have ready made units of about equal population that are perfect for our needs - Congressional districts. Granted, they're completely Jerrymandered, so you classify the districts by their population content (say, urban, suburban, and rural or some such scheme) and then have the first day consist of primaries in one district of each type, then pick up the pace a bit as time goes by but don't have any "super tuesdays."

  The order, of course, would be assigned by lottery.

  by BlackGriffen on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:36:19 PM PDT

  •  "If we subdivide..."?

    Each state determines how the voting is to be done, I think.  The DNC controls the convention, not the primaries.
    Frankly, I like the idea of a small number of small states going first.  These states will have (relatively) inexpensive media markets, and so a moderately-funded candidate has a chance of doing well.
    These small states, with small numbers of delegates, do not exclude other (large) states from making a difference.  It's the hair-ball of primaries after IA and NH (and SC and NV) which need attention, and maybe the diarist's approach is reasonable.
    I completely agree with your comment that gerrymandered Congressional Districts throw a monkey-wrench into any scheme which gets away from an "all or nothing" approach to awarding/selecting a state's delegates (even to the Electoral College).

    by godwhataklutz on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 03:40:32 PM PDT

•  Break things down by Congressional districts?

  We've got 435 CDs. Break them down into 15 rounds of 29 CDs each, scattered using a mathematical method to achieve equitable geographic distribution (randomly changed every cycle).

  All votes will mailed in (or dropped off) by absentee ballots.

  Every week, beginning in March or April, a batch of CDs will close their voting and count the votes. We go through 15 rounds/weeks and tally them (either grouping by states or otherwise) once all the rounds are finished.

  Simple, inexpensive and fair to all regions.

  How do you like my idea here?

  A more radical proposal is to go for Lousiana style system for both the primary and the general, but I'll post about after I think about it (now with the new CD-based ideas in mind).

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 04:06:50 PM PDT