A National Primary Plan

In response to Trapper's Diary Last night)

And This BAN Superdelegates Diary

I offer this idea for a national Primary system, below the fold

A series of three national primaries with threshold limits

No one may announce or raise money for a presidential bid before October, the year before the election.

In January, ALL announced candidates hold a series of debates on specific topics on a variety of national and cable outlets.

Then at the end of January, a 10% threshold vote is taken.  This eliminates all the minor candidates with no following.

All candidates who get at least 10% move on to the next vote.  At the end of February, a 35% threshold vote is held.

This should reduce the vote to only 2 people. A final winner-take-all vote in mid-March.  The winner receives the nomination.

Delegates would be assigned by the threshold number: 15% of delegates would be distributed evenly to all who broke the 10% threshold, so they will have a voice at the convention.

30% of delegates would be distributed to each of the 35% threshold survivors (totaling 75% distributed at that point)

The remaining 25% of delegates would go to the winner of the final vote, giving the winner at least 55% of all delegates, assuring a first ballot victory.   Those other delegates still give a voice to the other significant players for things like setting up the platform, opportunities to speak, and so on.  It eliminates 'first in the nation' Iowa and New Hampshire, instead offering low thresholds to get started and give the Dodds and Kuciniches a chance to be heard.

Thoughts?

•  tips

  Tips for brainstorming

  by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM PDT

•  So you are

  recommending a hybrid run-off system similar to France? Sounds like a good idea, but the reason it's set up with Iowa and NH going first is because they would not have the money to pull of an early national campaign and Iowa and NH act as buffers against that. It works this way. We would have large scale voter disenfranchisement any other way.

  by psilocynic on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM PDT

  •  Voter turnout?

    Why don't we schedule primaries in order of voter turnout as a percentage of population? States with the most voters as a percentage of population get the first primaries. States would be encouraged to register voters and run clean, easy elections. They would get prestige.

    Extremely large and expensive states like CA, NY, FL and TX don't rank in the top 10, so smaller, cheaper states would still go first.

    If IA and NH think they matter so much, then they should vote. Right now, in national presidential elections, they rank 7th and 8th.

    Let the states most engaged in democracy vote first and matter.

    by Gravedugger on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM PDT

•  This just doesn't seem feasable

  A series of three national primaries with threshold limits

  No one may announce or raise money for a presidential bid before October, the year before the election.

  In January, ALL announced candidates hold a series of debates on specific topics on a variety of national and cable outlets.

  Then at the end of January, a 10% threshold vote is taken.  This eliminates all the minor candidates with no following.

  Elections require money, and lots of it, especially if it's a national election and especially if there are going to be THREE separate elections. Forgeting how one could possibly enforce a fundraising limit like that, but assuming they could; it would only allow for candidates who can raise a LOT of money in a short period of time or candidates who are filthy stinkin' rich (Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Bill Gates, etc.) This system would probably eliminate John Edwards, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee, Mike Gravel, and Rudy Giuliani before it could start.

  I appreciate the reasoning behind it, but the solution is worse than the problem.

  by NMLib on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:36:04 PM PDT

•  I dont know

  Though i think this is slightly more resonable plan, i feel that it still doesnt address the problem fully. Additionally, I do not think enough people will come out for three different votes, and the cost of each of those elections could be crazy.

  I still think we should go for the LA/European double balloting system. Have a vote in july or august where anyone can run and then if no one gets a plurality of votes, then move the top two forward.

  by drexeldem on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM PDT

•  Sorry to interrupt but I couldn't resist...

  ...you get a rec for the name ScrewySquirrel! Too good.  

  by alicia on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM PDT

  •  what can I say...

    It fits me :)

    by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM PDT