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.