Here I present a brief thesis on what I believe will be a beneficial election reform that will help increase voter participation and insure that the nominee is selected democratically.
It has been noted by all parties at one time or another that the current system of nomination benefits the one lucky enough to have the advantage at key points in the race. Originally it was those who opposed Dean who grumbled about it and now those who oppose Kerry are doing the same. So, why not remove the current system and install a new one. Hey, I'm a progressive right? This is what I do.
The primary concern currently is with the momentum issue. Basically, momentum allows for such things as a post-Iowa bounce. These bounces in popularity for a candidate are spurred on by the media declaring them a winner over and over for a number of days, pundits claiming the contest is over, ect ect. And because of the compressed primary schedule, the bounces can have devastating effects for anyone who doesn't get the momentum.
So let us remove victory momentum and bounces all together shall we?
We are thus given three options, either compress the primaries so they all occur on one day, have all the primaries on the same day of the month, but spread them out over several months, or spread all the primaries and caucuses out so that over the course of time between the general and the next convention each state has a primary or caucus every two weeks.
The first option, to have a real national primary will eliminate the momentum issue between states but advertising in every state with out the party's support demands that a candidate has a good deal of funds or a grassroots campaign that puts all the one's we've seen already to shame. And it is very vulnerable to the 'october surprise' phenomenon, where a surprise occurs right before the national primary that causes one of the candidates to be critically damaged or one to be seen as holier than any mere mortal just at the right time to swing the votes.
A pulse primary system, where every month, on a specific day (let's say the 10th day of each month), a number of states would have their respective primaries and caucuses. This reduces momentum by having the 'pulses' a month apart, but it is not eliminated, especially after a very large win. Sweeping the first month's contests could invite the inevitability meme to pop up again. And once again, the well funded our highly mobilized campaigns will be more able to compete in the pulses.
The third option, the spread out contest allows for campaigns with little money or small organization to compete, being able to concentrate on each state individually and raising funds and getting the next phases organization under way between contests. The down side is the amount of time needed to run the entire primary calendar. About 43 months stand between swearing in and the next convention. If only two contests were held a month, that would require at least 25 months for each state to be represented, plus those needed for DC and territories (I don't know much about those). So that means that after a president's first year in office, the challengers for the next election will be lined up and beginning their campaigns.
Momentum in option three is muddled but not eliminated. A bounce from one state could easily hit the next. But the likely hood of a chain reaction caused by early momentum can easily muddled by the media and other candidates. It also allows the opposition party (today that's us, tomorrow who knows!?!) to be in the news arguing against the incumbent for a majority of the president's term, which eventually averages to about all the time. This of course either leads to the candidates concentrating on each other, thus insuring their party's loss in the next election due to all possible nominees being so covered in tar, or else it forces them to actually act like an opposition party. Hopefully for the Democrats they would choose to attack a republican president during their long tenure as candidates. This leads to the party in power to respond and keeps politics front and center nearly all the time.
The down side to option three would be of course everyone on the daily kos getting politics fatigue. The opposite of that is the general public will be continually exposed to politics. This could lead to more interest in politics and a greater exposure of the candidates to the electorate. A.k.a. people will know who is running, will have a good chance to meet them, and will be exposed to the vital issues that affect America.
If it wasn't obvious by now, I prefer option three.
Next step, voting procedures.
Assuming we retain the delegate system for the nomination, primaries could benefit greatly from instant runoff voting. Since caucuses operate in a manner vaguely reminiscent of instant runoff already, we'll leave them be. But primaries usually require that a candidate receive at least 15% of the vote to get even one delegate. In New Hampshire for example, over 30% of the vote didn't count in the final distribution of delegates. But if voters had the option of a second choice on their ballot in the event that their first choice does not receive 15%, people would be more willing to support a candidate they believe and make the most 'electable' their second choice. This increases the odds of the candidate with the most wide spread favorability winning each contest.
The general election can also benefit from instant runoff. Some liberals and progressive would very much like to vote 3rd party this election, but know doing so will make Bush stronger. Instant runoff could cure this fear and encourage protest votes that don't ruin one end of the political spectrum or the other and begins to end the dominance of the two party system which thrives on voter apathy and insider cronyism. Which I personally feel would be a good thing.
Finally, to bring in another idea I randomly floated in a comment a week or so ago. I propose the creation of 'The Presidency Channel'. It would work sort of like PBS, no commercials, government funding and public donations, and non-ratings driven. TPC would host debates, report news on the race for the white house, show rallies for the various candidates, and specialty programs that teach the public about previous presidencies, workings of the government, and the electoral process. Civic education meets television. And with option three for the primary structure, TPC would be relevant all the time.
A key feature will be the small debate format on TPC. In large fields of candidates which will inevitably pop up for all party nominations and in the general, the standard debate format leaves a great deal to be desired, such as more than simply a sound bite and a quick promise to win. TPC could host small debates between two candidates in various formats and at low cost, such as a simple set that is always up with a pool of three or four moderators that can rotate randomly. Each candidate will get more than the usual 60 seconds we've seen so far this political season and be able to explain complex issues and not have to rush through a portion of their stump speech.
And there it is. If you have critiques and or ideas, go ahead and post them.