Given the hoopla over the R&B's Florida/Michigan decision this weekend, I've been thinking about ways to improve this byzantine and at times arbitrary primary system for 2012. Of course, the candidates knew what they were getting into this cycle, so I don't accept any ex post facto complaining, but since we hope to have an uncontested primary in 2012, it seems like as good a time as any for reform.
Let me start by saying this: I like proportional allocation. No, it doesn't work like the ever-loathed Electoral College, but it's...well, democratic. Republicans like to choose their nominee by making states like California, Florida, and New York winner-take-all, but as Democrats we like underdogs a bit more than that.
Let me also say that I like the early four states used this cycle. Maybe we should try to rotate these early four every cycle, but I think we should always aim for a similar regional, ethnic, and ideological balance: one labor-heavy Midwestern state, one Western state with a marked rural/urban split, one independent-minded Northeastern state, one heavily African-American Deep Southern state.
I don't pretend to have the answers. But I think I've got a decent proposal, on which I'd like to hear input. It is far from perfect, but it is a start. Read below the fold...
First of all, that this year's calendar began shortly after the New Year and dragged on through June is a travesty. How about we start later and end earlier? No blizzards during primary season, and no mosquitoes (or, God forbid, primary fatigue) either. I like the idea of beginning in the first week of March and ending in the second week of May.
My system would have the nomination very likely decided during April every cycle. Only the four "early states" would go in March, with most of the country voting in April, and the territories, districts, and superdelegates wrapping things up in May.
Without further, my proposed 2012 calendar:
March 1: Iowa caucus - It's not that Iowa is the first state by divine right, but it does provide a convenient starting place. It's in the middle of the country. It forces candidates to address agricultural and rural concerns as well as energy and bread-and-butter liberal issues like health care and education. Iowa Democrats, other than being overwhelmingly white, are a good ideological slice of the national Democratic Party. And since the Nevada caucus would be only 5 days later in my calendar, Iowa monopolizing the nomination process would be unlikely (as any candidate who ran particularly poorly in the Midwest would be able to claim Nevada, New Hampshire, or South Carolina as a firewall).
Also, as I said, the first four should rotate. So Iowa could be replaced by, say, Missouri in 2016, Michigan in 2020, Kansas in 2024...
March 6: Nevada caucus - The DNC was right to originally put Nevada before New Hampshire in the 2008 calendar. New Hampshire would still be the first primary, but candidates would first be brought to more diverse and fledgling turf, where the party mechanism needed oiling. Nevada is a uniquely good Western state to have early in the process as it is small but rapidly growing, has decent numbers of Latinos (and a surprising African-American population considering its location), a labor movement with serious clout, and as good a mix of rural and urban issues as you will find in the country. Re: that rural/urban mix, this state boasts one county that is essentially an outgrowth of urban Southern California, and a bunch of others that boast mostly mountains and ranches. Good preparation for the general election.
Nevada could be replaced just as easily...how about New Mexico, to give Latinos a decisive place in the process? Or Arizona, or Colorado. Preferably not gargantuan California or heavily white Oregon/Washington/any of the Mountain states.
March 13: New Hampshire primary - Love it or hate it, it serves its purpose. Here, candidates are forced to address serious issues over hot cocoa with some of the most skeptical voters in the country. This primary's future purpose is to give progressive-minded Independents a voice in the process, as Independents can sometimes number close to 50% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Indies do not have those kinds of numbers in any other early state. New Hampshire, while whiter than chiclets and less populous than my hometown, also contains a wonderfully schizophrenic mix of hard left college towns and former Eugene McCarthy strongholds and some very conservative old-line working-class areas.
New Hampshire has such an iconoclastic culture that it could not easily be replaced. Maine and Vermont are similar to it enough, but their electorates are decidedly more liberal. The southern New England states are more typically establishment-friendly. But in the interest of fairness, any Northeastern state with a high number of Independents would do the trick in future cycles.
March 20: South Carolina primary - African-Americans are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, so scrapping the South Carolina primary (or another Deep South equivalent) would severely delegitimize the nominating process. As the state is 30% black, and the primary electorate about 50% black, South Carolina's Dem primary is more minority-dominated than just about anywhere other than D.C. Mississippi, Louisiana, or Georgia are comparably diverse, and could serve in loco South Carolina in future cycles. Bottom line: in the 21st century, Democratic candidates have got to prove their appeal to black voters before clinching the nomination.
Now on to the complicated part...April. I have a series of Super Tuesdays with progressively more populous states voting.
April 3: All states with fewer than 4 congressional districts - Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming - The little states! If one of these were to serve as an early state in place of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, that other early state would be swapped in its place. This not-so-super Tuesday would cover 19 states in every region of the country, but not have a ton of delegates, allowing underdog candidates to continue on and make their last stands in bigger states.
April 10: All states with 5-8 congressional districts - Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Wisconsin - No particular advantage to any candidate here. While the April 3 Super Tuesday favors a candidate who does well in rural states, this day is pretty random. At this point fringe candidates will have to concede, but two or three frontrunners should still remain provided the overall field isn't too weak.
April 17: All states with 9-13 congressional districts - Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington - Now we're getting to bigger states where more is at stake. A contest like 2008 would definitely be down to two candidates by this point.
April 24: All states with 14-20 congressional districts - Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania - The Rust Belt primary. These states are big enough to save a flailing campaign, but not so big that they would kill a frontrunner who happened to be weak in the Rust Belt. The day of reckoning comes a week later...
May 1: The big four - California, Florida, New York, Texas - At this point a nominee should be picked, someone with the money and appeal to hold their own in the biggies. There is strong evidence that if the Clinton/Obama contest had had the big four come at the end, Obama would have won both California and Texas outright. By now the dynamics of the race would be clear and all candidates would have had ample opportunity to make themselves known nationally.
May 8: Non-states - American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands - Bottom line, these are icing on the cake of the presumptive nominee of tomorrow. Puerto Rico does NOT get more delegates than a mid-sized state.
May 15: Superdelegate convention - As Phil Bredesen proposed, there should be a mandatory day for superdelegates to meet and make their endorsements known. This is the deadline to endorse; no uncommitteds after this date. Thus the typical Democratic primary of tomorrow will be utterly, thoroughly, 100% over by mid-May. Maybe we can eliminate conventions altogether and just let the general election begin at this point.
I know the system has its flaws and quirks, but what do you think? You gotta admit it's an improvement over what we have now (which itself was an improvement over the smoke-filled system pre-1972).
EDIT: Enforcing this eminently logical system (I say that with all humility and self-effacement) would mean the DNC makes its own calendar and states are not allowed to move up at will. I never understood why states got to pick their presidential primary dates. Congressional and state offices, sure. But since the national parties make their own rules for presidential selection, it seems like they should devise their own calendars as well, rather than being at the mercy of renegade state legislatures.