"Election eve's polls concerning a replacement system for the current primary system. I thought the conversation was worth continuing.
A few people put forward some ideas. I'll take the liberty of reposting them here:
- tameszu:
My proposal:
Set the primary calendar in advance, then do it like the NBA draft--wherein you put each state on a little rubber ball and load it into one of those lottery machine tumbler thingies, and then all get together in a big televised event to watch the DNC chair pull them out and fill the primary calendar at random! Think about the hijinx that will occur when Alaska and New Jersey pop out as the first 2 primary states!
(My friend also suggested that youc an make this even more like the NBA draft and give suckier states more balls)
- My own idea:
And it is heresy for me to be saying this as I live in NH but...
Divide the US into something like six regions: NW,SW,NE,SE, northern midwest, southern midwest. If you want to be truly creative break the country up into those weird demographic groups put out a few months ago.
Each presidential cycle, states within these regions are given a random draw as to order. Then, the six "ones" go first, "twos" go second etc. Perhaps something like this:
three ones on Jan 1, the other three on Jan 14 (again randomly selected each election cycle)
three twos on Feb 1, others Feb 14
etc etc
Pros:
1. more representative of the country (at least over time). No hogging of the spotlight by IA and NH. Could even change randomization to pick states for several elections out to ensure states are mixed up sufficiently.
2. Relatively quickly brings lots of states into the mix. Given randomization and geographical diversity, chances are the system would hit most demographic groups relatively quickly.
Cons:
1. Candidates with less money would be hurt (it is easier to compete in NH and IA and hope for a fundraising boost if you suceed). Thus, I would couple this idea with publically financed campaign or, at least, free air time.
2. Luck of the draw could create some weird combinations - e.g. we could get Utah, Indiana, Texas, Alabama and Delaware and Idaho in the first round. What kind of democratic nominee would that pick? Something like this might cause candidates to opt for wait and see - skipping initial rounds for more favorable ones. Then again, this might be a pro if one could force the press to actually cover the candidates...
3. Less retail politics. Also, if a huge state (e.g. CA, TX, NY) gets picked in first round there would be even less retail politics.
Kibbitz away...
- GreenSooner
In every other election in our society, voting takes place on the same day, and no vote totals are made available until the voting is complete (including those of absentees, who are the only ones voting on different days). There's a reason for this. It's the most fair way to vote.
The supposed virtues of the current primary system, like those of college football's BCS, are just rationalizations dreamed up by the folks whose interests are served by it. And the group that benefits most are party insiders who control this process (and who incidentally constitute the Super Delegates who are around lest an actual popular election takes place).
You'll notice that nobody is calling for any other election to be set up the way presidential primaries are set up. Nobody wants states to vote county by county over months on end in gubernatorial primaries. Nobody wants to amend the constitution to hold national general elections in different states at different times. Why? These are obviously bad ideas.
All that being said, I do think that instant runoff voting improves any election by making the outcome a better representation of what the people want. A one-day primary without IRV would throw the decision to the convention, because it's highly unlikely, especially in a crowded field, that one candidate would win a majority of the votes.
My guess is that Edwards, not Kerry, would win a national IRV Democratic primary if one were held today. He really does seem to be everyone's second choice. And his negatives are a lot lower than Kerry's.
- steina
I've been thinking about this a lot.
How about a "National Caucus"?
States all hold primaries on the same day. Candidates earn "delegates" by winning states, or beating a high threshold (20%?).
Candidates who end up with enough delegates from the statewide primaries go on to the next round. This reduces the field to eliminate the vanity candidates.
One month later, the states hold another election between the remaining candidates. This gives time to focus the debate. It also give supporters of marginal candidates an opportunity to look at the other candidates and leverage their support. All of the delegates from each state are in play during this last round, and the normal rules in each state for meeting viability and winning delegates still apply.
The candidate who takes the most delegates to the convention wins!
I think this plan would generate much more excitement on a nationwide scale, and the media would go ape-shit covering it. It would be like the playoffs and Super-Bowl of politics.
Now, there are some good comments on each of these and responses as well. In my mind, there seem to be several goals that sometimes conflict:
I invite everyone to continue the discussion here. Does anyone have additions to these goals? Which ones conflict and how can a solution be optimized? Are there other things I've forgotten on this list?