jrtom

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print

There's a very clear and obvious slant here, which I tried to ignore as I read the article. Many quotes are unsourced, and thus a priori suspect.

But the man damns himself repeatedly with his own words.

And he has no business calling anyone an elitist, as someone whose life has been defined by his membership in various elites.

I want to be able to respect him, and I do respect some of his stances and accomplishments. But I cannot respect the man himself.

I wish that this were an election for which it was hard to decide between the Presidential candidates because they were both eminently suited for the job, albeit with different philosophies and priorities.

It's not.

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.)