![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
two modest proposals for presidential primary scheduling
The existing system is broken. If you don't believe that, I don't plan to convince you of this here, so move on.
Method 1: Divide the states into 10 groups of 5, either regionally or such that the number of voters involved in each group is as close to parity as possible. (Both criteria simultaneously would be ideal, but let's face it, California and New York--for example--make that impossible.) The primaries are then spread out over 10 weeks, one group of primaries per week. The ordering of the groups rotates (so in 2012 the ordering would be 1, 2, 3, ..., 10; in 2016: 2, 3, ..., 10, 1; etc.) so that no group is always early or always late.
This is a pretty straightforward proposal, and no doubt similar to things that have been proposed elsewhere. It could get passed.
(Iowa and NH will bitch. To them I say "Suck it up, there's nothing sacred about you getting to go early.")
Method 2: Assign (a maximum number of) delegates to each state in the usual way. Define an absolute earliest and absolute latest date during which primaries/caucuses can happen; states may schedule their contests at any point in this interval.
Now for the fun part: The earlier that a state holds its contest, the fewer delegates that it receives.
This sets up negative feedback: going early gets more attention but loses impact (which seems fair, because the impact of the early states on the national contest is disproportionate in the other direction anyway). Going late runs the risk of making your contest irrelevant, but gives you a bigger club to swing.
Now, I might modify this to give smaller states less of a penalty for going earlier, but I think that the basic concept would lead to some fascinating strategizing.
Sadly, this kind of proposal is probably too complicated to get passed (it need not be complex at all, really, but it would be presented as such), but I'd love to see it tried.
(This second method was suggested by a conversation I was having with Megan earlier today about our sense that while Florida and Michigan weren't playing by the rules, it still seemed harsh to the citizens (who had no direct voice in the decision to change the date) to make their primaries entirely irrelevant, at least on the D side.)
Method 1: Divide the states into 10 groups of 5, either regionally or such that the number of voters involved in each group is as close to parity as possible. (Both criteria simultaneously would be ideal, but let's face it, California and New York--for example--make that impossible.) The primaries are then spread out over 10 weeks, one group of primaries per week. The ordering of the groups rotates (so in 2012 the ordering would be 1, 2, 3, ..., 10; in 2016: 2, 3, ..., 10, 1; etc.) so that no group is always early or always late.
This is a pretty straightforward proposal, and no doubt similar to things that have been proposed elsewhere. It could get passed.
(Iowa and NH will bitch. To them I say "Suck it up, there's nothing sacred about you getting to go early.")
Method 2: Assign (a maximum number of) delegates to each state in the usual way. Define an absolute earliest and absolute latest date during which primaries/caucuses can happen; states may schedule their contests at any point in this interval.
Now for the fun part: The earlier that a state holds its contest, the fewer delegates that it receives.
This sets up negative feedback: going early gets more attention but loses impact (which seems fair, because the impact of the early states on the national contest is disproportionate in the other direction anyway). Going late runs the risk of making your contest irrelevant, but gives you a bigger club to swing.
Now, I might modify this to give smaller states less of a penalty for going earlier, but I think that the basic concept would lead to some fascinating strategizing.
Sadly, this kind of proposal is probably too complicated to get passed (it need not be complex at all, really, but it would be presented as such), but I'd love to see it tried.
(This second method was suggested by a conversation I was having with Megan earlier today about our sense that while Florida and Michigan weren't playing by the rules, it still seemed harsh to the citizens (who had no direct voice in the decision to change the date) to make their primaries entirely irrelevant, at least on the D side.)
no subject
It would have the advantage of letting small-state voters feel as if they have some choice*, and providing incentive for candidates to stay in the race until the end. It might also require a new approach to campaign financing, which couldn't help but be a good thing.
I also see little hope for any of this. The primaries are the parties' means of apportioning convention delegates, nothing more, and they're strongly state-influenced. I'm not sure the federal government could change that even if it wanted to - a given state party machine could just say "OK, we won't have a primary, we'll meet in a back room and pick our own delegates" and there's not much that could be done about it.
* Oregon's primary is fourth-from-the-last this time around. By the time I get my vote-by-mail ballot, there may be just one name on it.
no subject
(I also agree that a new approach to campaign financing is badly, badly needed.)
no subject
no subject
As to why your tax dollars are paying for them...well, presumably because you can participate in the election. (Oregon has open primaries, doesn't it?) Or, to put it another way, because most (almost all, I'd guess) voters are members of either the D or the R party.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-02-02 11:54 am (UTC)(link)Open primaries seem like an oxymoron to me. Oh well.
no subject
no subject
It's a feedback system: legislators are D & R because voters are because legislators are, ad infinitum. Which is why the points in U.S. history in which third parties come in and replace one of the existing two dominant parties are particularly interesting. Hasn't happened since the Civil War, but there are indicators that we could be ripe for another round. (The Republican party is ripe for a split, IMO.)
In any case, it seems to me that having input earlier in the elections can't help but be useful, regardless of your political stance (absent degenerate cases in which one believes that everyone else should determine one's fate :) ).