Opinion seems to be coalescing around the idea our primary system needs an overhaul, and I think there is good chance it will be for the 2012 race. If it is not, the reason will likely be because agreement can't be reached on what work better - a regional approach, random order, time zones, etc.
For whatever reason I was musing about this the morning of the New Hampshire primaries, and thought up a scheme I haven't seen elsewhere, so I wanted to throw it out for consideration.
Anyhow, the basic notions would be to start with the smaller population states and work up to the larger population ones, combined with spreading the primaries out over a regular period.
Pick a day, say the second Tuesday of January, as the day for our first primary. Take the two smallest states in terms of population and hold their primaries that day. One week later hold primaries for the next two least populated, etc. Continue until all primaries are held.
One complaint I can hear already is we already have two small-population states with undue influence on our nomination process. However, to some extent I want to keep that in play. No matter how much time a candidate spends in California or Texas, there simply is not going to be enough time for voters there to truly get to know the candidates in the same way voters in a smaller state can, given a few months of exposure.
I do think, however, this approach does help water down that influence a bit. Rather than having a flood of primaries one month after the leading ones (as is the case this year), it allows time for a candidate to gradually build up, or to overcome early missteps. The entire process would take 24 weeks from the first pair of primaries to the last, plenty of time for things to develop. On the other hand, having only the two primaries each week, and always a week apart, allows sufficient time for the candidates to get to and spend time in each state if they wish (they may opt to use time elsewhere of course if they wish).
I don't advocate going strictly by population. Shuffling things around a bit to keep paired primaries geographically closer seems like a good idea to me. As an example, the least populated states in reverse order (2000 census) are:
Wyoming (least populous), Vermont, Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire
Given this list I would suggest the following order for the first five weeks:
Week 1: Wyoming, Montana
Week 2: Vermont, New Hampshire
Week 3: Alaska, Hawaii
Week 4: N. Dakota, S. Dakota
Week 5: Delaware, Rhode Island
And so on.
While the least-populated states allow for voters to get to know candidates more personally, and allow candidates to start building some momentum, the greater mass of the delegates is always late in the process, which would allow for the possibility of late comebacks, voters reacting to events during the campaign, etc.
As I noted before, I haven't seen any proposal along these lines (although they are probably out there somewhere), so it's either inspired or stupid (or both). Feel free to let me know which, and why
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like it, the only problem would be the cost of the thing. Moneybags candidates would hold the ultimate advantage as, by the time the populous states roll around, a ton of money would be needed to compete. With this strategy, one would need to advertise in every state, with the real costly ones backloaded.
I would prefer to see something similar, but grouped by region. Week 1, one new england, one western state, Week 2- One midwestern and one southern state., etc. with varying mixes and state size.
Oh, and Florida always goes last, due to 2000 to heighten the drama.
TR's idea is best, the rest of you are Commie Pinkos.
Post a Comment