Off The Grid # 1

Surprisingly, I think this calendar has, for the most part, been working. Changes I would make:

1) More time between the last pre-February 5 state, and Super Tuesday. With the GOP only getting 1 week between Florida and Feb. 5, and the Democrats only getting 10 days from SC, none of the campaigns had enough time to move from the early contests to this national primary. Maybe just one extra week would have been enough.
2) Hillary is right that caucuses aren't very democratic. I'm saying this as an Obama supporter, and knowing that they've massively helped his victory. But if in 2012 we could have everyone but Iowa use primaries, that would be a good thing. Let Iowa do it its own way if it wants to. If Iowa can maintain the type of turnout it had this time around, I fail to see the problem. Even more importantly on the GOP side: Scrap county conventions. Let at least party members vote.
3) I'm a huge fan of open- or semi-open primaries. That's just something to put on my "ain't gonna happen wish list".
4) Iowa and N.H. can stay at the head of the table. Starting the race with retail politics is a good thing. Having diversity in the early states is a good thing.
5) The ability for the parties to truly step in and tell the large states and other states that move forward: No. Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention, but that's only because Obama is about to run away with the nomination.

6) One final thing to consider: March 4th to April 22nd. Because of the rush to front-load, there are over 6 weeks between meaningful contests. If the Democratic nomination isn't decided by then (doubtful), then Pennsylvania will get the Iowa treatment for a month-and-a-half. Living in Pennsylvania, I would both love the chance to see the candidates, volunteer, etc. etc., but I also don't want our state to be the only center of the political universe for such a long period of time. Ideally, there should be some limit to how far apart the contests could be. But I don't think that's realistically possible.
Super Tuesday worked. For the Democrats, the nation stood up and said "Keep trying. We love you both." (Then the rest of the country began to reject one of the candidates. Even as an Obama supporter, I am amazed at how quickly Hillary's support seems to be dropping out from under her. 64-36 in Virginia? Seriously?) For the Republicans, they said "McCain's the best of this lot." Having a steady pace of primaries before Super Tuesday is a good thing, and the calendar has (mostly) spaced itself out to have a steady pace of states afterwards. So I'd just tinker around the edges.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 9:29 AM

I think it would be wise to keep Iowa and New Hampshire and possibly Nevada and South Carolina (to give each region a shot) so that candidates are forced to go out and meet people rather than just present themselves through the media. This gives unknowns a shot. Then I think it would be wise to go to five or six regional primaries so that candidates don't have to waste time jetting from Washington to Nebraska to Louisiana to Maine all on the same weekend. Spread them each apart by about ten days or two weeks and that seems like the best way to do it.

Posted by Jared | February 13, 2008 9:30 AM

I'm an admitted Deaniac, but I think that this year's primary process on the Democratic side was a work of mad genius. The rules have forced the Democratic candidates to do retail campaigning in every state, and have led to people in every state not called Iowa or New Hampshire feeling like their votes have mattered for the first election in their lives. The candidates can't even count on skipping Puerto Rico. As a result, the Democrats have a ground game in every state and that will make a big difference down the ticket, no matter what happens.

An ideal calendar -- how about four states a week for three months? I definitely think that the longevity of the contest will lead to the reverse of the situation this cycle, where each state wanted to go first because the first states were decisive last time around.

Posted by neil | February 13, 2008 9:34 AM

I liked the idea that was proposed of having rotating "regional" primaries about every two weeks held in groups of contiguous states. So you would, for example, have a "New England" primary, a "southwest" primary, etc. The order of these would change every four years.

This would allow the candidates to focus on the issues and voters in that particular region for a couple weeks. They also wouldn't have to waste massive amounts of money flying back and forth between, say, New Hampshire and Nevada, and buying ads in far-flung media markets. (though this would still require them to run large scale, expensive campaigns so they can't skimp on fundraising altogether)

Posted by rufustfyrfly | February 13, 2008 9:42 AM

If you're running at the candidate of typos, then you've made a strategic blunder: You can't compete with Matt Yglesias on that front.

An extra week before Super Tuesday and here and there would have been good. Otherwise, "mad genius" does describe it. But this depends crucially on Michigan and Florida staying punished. Florida decided the Republican nomination and might well have decided the Democratic nomination too.

Posted by John DE | February 13, 2008 9:43 AM

I agree with rufusfryfry on the idea of regional primaries. As a Vermonter, I tire of New Hampshire mattering a great deal and us being a complete afterthought. Heck, I do not even remember Dean coming here in 2004, and he was governor here!

A regional block would be great, forcing New England states to be treated equally, rather than having New Hampshire get 95% of the attention, Massachusetts 4%, and the rest of us afterthoughts...

Posted by Mark | February 13, 2008 9:46 AM

The process starts too early and is over too quickly. Voters need time to take a serious look at the top contenders and see how they handle themselves over an extended period. I'd like to see it all begin in February, in two small states, and continue in March with two more. Then schedule the remaining states in three Super Tuesdays, one each in April, May, and June, with roughly equal electoral votes represented each month. Select the states randomly or regionally.

Posted by Dan | February 13, 2008 9:50 AM

Regional primaries are an awful way to solve it; we'd just end up with candidate who pander to whichever region went first. The Michigan plan to randomly select one state from each region is a better way to go.

Surprisingly, I think things have worked out decently well on both sides. I suppose that the speed of the nomination on the GOP side let McCain storm through an awful lot of contests ... you could imagine, if things were more drawn out, that conservative activists coalesced around Romney and defeated McCain. But for the most part everybody had their chance to get their licks in. What I really dislike is the vote-by-mail leading to a result where mail voters were far more pro-Clinton and pro-McCain than poll voters, because the dynamics had shifted.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 13, 2008 10:13 AM

The only real disasters have been Florida and Michigan.

I read this suggestion on a discussion group:

week one: the smallest 17 states (by population)

week two: the middle 17 states

week three: the largest 17 states

This way, you get retail politics without pandering to Iowans. And you don't get this endless dead heat.

Posted by goethean | February 13, 2008 10:34 AM

The calendar, in general, is awful. As was stated earlier, it starts too early and ends too soon.

It's an absolute outrage that the contest with the single greatest impact on who wins the nomination (Iowa) is held in the dead of winter under treacherous travel conditions.

I firmly believe that the only morally defensible way to pick a nominee is to have a single national primary date. Otherwise, you have a system in which a voting aristocracy basically gets to unfairly filter and bias the choices the rest of us get to have. It's fundamentally repugnant, undemocratic, and ultimately harmful to our civic culture and the outcomes we get from government at all levels.

Further, caucuses should be banned, or at least turned into Firehouse Caucuses which function the same as primaries. "Iowa"-style caucuses in which no two votes are equal ought to be a national scandal.

The above are all extreme measures that will never happen, so in the spirit Obamian pragmatism and compromise, I suggest a federally mandated primary/caucus window of April 1 - August 1, with four possible primary dates from which states are free to choose. Also, there should be a federally mandated requirement that no state or state party can hold a primary or caucus that does not feature an absentee balloting option.

Posted by dry_fish | February 13, 2008 10:40 AM

OK, so if I could design it, it'd go like this.

Let Iowa and New Hampshire go first; why not, it's a quaint national tradition, and it forces politicians to shake hands and kiss babies early in the process. Then codify all the other primary and caucus dates from this year's cycle, or last year's, whatever: a few primaries, then three or four at once, Super Tuesday, Super Saturday, etc. But every year, put different states into those slots, to be chosen in some kind of televised lottery every four years.... let's say one year before every Election Day.

If you live in Texas, some years you'll be everyone's top priority, some years your primary won't really matter. And that's that! Pie in the sky, I know, but wouldn't that be fun?

Posted by Jason Pontius | February 13, 2008 11:14 AM

The calendar has worked well this year by the accident of having two well-financed, almost equally popular candidates through the first two months of voting. But if the DNC caves in like Chris Bowers expects and seats the Michigan and Florida delegations, then a whole lot more states will try to jump to the head of the pack next time. To prevent that, I would prefer to see the following:

- all states should use simple primaries where the delegates are awarded in proportion to the % of the popular vote for the entire state with a bonus for the overall popular vote leader in the state
- the primaries should not start until March (why should snow be a factor?)
- the primaries should all be held on Saturdays
- something like 5 states at a time should vote with 2 weeks between each primary date. Which states vote which week should be determined by lotto. States could only change the date of their vote by swapping dates with another state with the approval of the DNC.
- voters would select their top 2 candidates. If a candidate later dropped out, his votes and delegates would be reassigned based on the voters' 2nd choice.

Posted by Ron | February 13, 2008 11:35 AM

1. the states that balked this year at the economic and political boon that Iowa and NH have ar right: tradition doesn't mean it is equitable. Dems should make it equitable.
They should go to a lottery system like the NBA does with teams for draft picks. If it makes it more fair to award later states with a slightly larger delegate ratio of representation then consider that as long as there is a corresponding winnowing of the ratio for the early states.
They should even be allowed to trade up or down for different days or different ratios.
early slots one year should make it more difficult to obtain the early position the next year: a weighted lottery.

2. The bell curve distribution of states leading up to and away from Supertuesday kind of worked but its possible that 15 states would be better than 22.

3. It's possible that the state that goes first should not have delegates as the privlege and advantage of going first is too huge.

4. Forget caucuses: they are just square dances and only a bit better or fairer than a straw poll. States that use these should just let them be dog and pony shows with no delegates available.

5. Democratic voters only. close the process so that it is a function of the party.

Posted by Michael C. | February 13, 2008 11:54 AM

I agree with this concept but I would stretch it out. Maybe 8 states each week--or even 4-5. I think it is important to give America time to adjust to the idea of someone new or the idea of letting go of someone old...primaries should go on for 2-3 months...

week one: the smallest 17 states (by population)

week two: the middle 17 states

week three: the largest 17 states

Posted by heather | February 13, 2008 12:03 PM

We should spread the calendar out over about 3-4 months, with about 2-6 diverse states going every week. Less states early, more states late so less well-funded candidates can compete. Open primaries in each state. Let NH and IA go first if they want to, their influence will be greatly diminished in this scenario. Otherwise rotate which states get to go early on say a 20-year plan. Perhaps ban really giant states from the first 3 weeks or so, again so that less well funded candidates can compete.

Posted by John M. | February 13, 2008 12:27 PM

Oops, I mean semi-open primaries. And in passing, I'll say I think Super Tuesday was a terrible idea. I can't help but think Obama would have gotten a lot more traction if he didn't have to introduce himself to 22 states in a week.

Posted by John M. | February 13, 2008 12:30 PM

Why don't we ask Terry McAulliffe and HRC how this calendar has worked for THEM?

Posted by JBS | February 13, 2008 12:36 PM

I think this year, with two well funded and popular candidates, is not a good basis for decision-making. Try to think what would have happened four years ago but using this year's calendar if Kerry had not won NH (or some sort of counterfactual like that).

We definitely want to push back the start date and not have one contest in April, one in June, and then the convention at the end of August. Move some of the Super Tuesday states back after Ohio and Texas.

I think single states voting first is the best idea, much better than regional primaries. We want more retail politics, not television ad wars.

I don't see Iowa and NH ever getting pushed back. My idea is to make them earn it by announcing beforehand that the state with the highest per capita turnout in the general election (MN in 2004, but IA and NH are close) would get to go first. That incentivizes civic participation, rather than more barriers to voting, and politicians on both sides of the aisle will be forced to work together in order to reap the advantages of an early caucus or primary.

I have no problem with caucuses so long as they offer an absentee ballot option (Maine does, for example). What's wrong with giving a benefit to the candidate(s) with more committed supporters? It shows strength of organization, which is very important for the general election.

Posted by bob | February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

A quick side note. Yesterday morning, Ambinder posted an analysis that Obama would pick up a net gain of 32 delegates. Readers of this blog jumped all over him, essentially charging him with being a Hillary shill who was trying to set expectations for Obama unreasonably high. (see http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/dear_marc_i_thought_you.php from yesterday at 9:43 a.m.)

It turns out that Obama picked up a net of 31 delegates, out of 101 at stake in the Potomac Primaries. So, the analysis he was passing along was pretty darned accurate (less than 1% deviation).

I'm curious whether, in hindsight, those critics view Marc has having passed along useful information, or whether he's still in Hillary's pocket (now he's probably in her pocket because he's stopped posting right when Obama became the frontrunner, right?).

Resume posting soon, Marc.

Posted by Almatt | February 13, 2008 1:14 PM

I have always liked the idea of doing a draft lottery, NBA style. You could probably get David Stern to do it.

One primary per day - every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday - for seventeen weeks starting in mid January and running through July.

You could get the governor's to show up with their good luck charms and jerseys with the state logo and the year as the number.

You can allocate the ping pong balls in the lottery by some formula to give smaller states a better shot at going early since I do believe there is something to the idea of having a small state or two start.

I do think also we should move to a situation where the rules are uniform. All delegates are allocated proportionately, all primaries with secret ballots, and open to all citizens registered to vote would be my preferences.

Posted by Curtis | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM

...liked the idea that was proposed of having rotating "regional" primaries about every two weeks held in groups of contiguous states. So you would, for example, have a "New England" primary, a "southwest" primary, etc. The order of these would change every four years.

I keep hearing this idea being bounced around, and I must say I don't like it at all. I do like the idea of a series of mini Super Tuesdays -- you know, choose roughly 20% of the delegates in five multi state contests evenly spaced between late January and late April or so. I just don't think they should be structured regionally. I know doing them regionally saves on travel time, money, jet fuel, etc, but I want national unity reinforced, not regionalism. I think the latter approach tends to encourage a lot more pandering to parochial concerns (I can just imagine the protectionist rhetoric being ginned up for the Rustbelt Regional, or the promises of massive ethanol subsidies for the Midwest Regional, etc.).

And yes, let's make them all primaries, no caucuses. It's simply a fairer process.

Also, although this is just a pipe dream (because the parties obviously think otherwise), I tend to be more of a closed primary fan. I should preface that by saying, as a Massachusetts voter, I personally like the option I have of being able to enter either party's primary. But I think it would be better to put some modest restrictions on this. Perhaps require people to declare party registration at least, say, thirty days before a primary. The thing is, I think partisanship is a good thing, to the extent that it encourages a clear and distinct choice. I don't want politicians pandering to the bland middle. I know millions of voters disagree with me, but, to me the Obama campaign is an example of what I think is unhealthy: there's so little in the way of specificity. What the heck are we voting for in this guy's campaign? Unity? Togetherness? Clean politics? Who is against these things? You can no more be against unity than you can be against apple pie and motherhood.

It should be possible to reduce partisan rancor and bitterness and still maintain ideologically distinct parties. My fear is that, in an effort to get rid of the former, we're dumping the latter, or, perhaps we're encouraging our politicians to be deliberately muddy and fuzzy about their stands on actual issues, in an effort to court non-ideological voters. I know that less ideologically inclined or more moderate voters wouldn't necessarily be well-served (in the short term, at least) by restricting primary access to registered voters, but I believe one very healthy trend doing so might encourage is the development of a viable third (or fourth party). I think it's obvious that open primaries are one of the main tools the dominant two-headed party uses to squelch the emergence of competition.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 2:02 PM

I think everyone will agree that the hyper schedule this year was insane. Iowa and New Hampshire together in what amounts to the first week of January made for a hectic and unproductive set of contests.

The nationwide primary is intriguing, but it's clear from what` happened on Super Tuesday that only the big names have a shot in what amounts to name recognition. I'm leaving the wacky evangelicals who voted for Huckabee out of this...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 13, 2008 2:16 PM

I don't think you can or should separate the primary calendar from the method of selecting delegates. It makes sense to have a handful of earlier states with proportional delegate allocation. The last primaries in the calendar should be winner-take-all. In the middle, there should be a sliding scale between proportional representation and winner take all (the close to Iowa and New Hampshire, the more proportional you must be). The beauty behind this system is that it rewards the early states as beauty contests (e.g. the delta between first and second place is small) and these early states can maintain their ability to select the candidates with a "ticket out" of them. However, the later states will matter more than they currently do, as they can change the composition of the delegate count dramatically. This structure will serve to deincentivize too many states from crowding the early ones by making the late states' delegates relatively more important.

The only other change I'm make to the calendar, is to have a 'primary' for military personnel and others who live in caucus states but can't attend a caucus. It is a crime that our brave men and women who serve overseas can't participate in selecting their party's nominees.

Posted by JML | February 13, 2008 4:38 PM

Almatt - ironically, Obama got a net gain of 52 delegates from the Potomac Primary, far exceeding Ambinder's prediction of 31 - and making a mockery of the idea that he was setting the bar unreasonably high.

Posted by kalimantan | February 13, 2008 5:19 PM

I love the current primary setup. I live in MS, and it appears that Mark Penn will actually spend time polling MS to determine how best for Clinton to pander to us, and Obama might even hold a couple of pep rallies in our red state.
I don't buy the argument that an undecided dem. contest hurts dems when they get to campaign in every state and draw huge crowds and tons of press while the republican nominee does a victory lap around the country.
ideal setup:
6 evenly spaced early contests:
ia, nh, nv, sc, + 2 more small distinct states maybe OR & LA
~20 states simultaneously 2 weeks later.
the remaining 24 contests should come in weekly groups of 3 geographic clusters.
This would keep these very different styles of campaigning (all of which will be required in the general) relevent

Posted by taricha | February 13, 2008 5:40 PM

The process on the Democratic side is working surprisingly well but needs to be improved. The tradition of starting in smaller states with retail politics is a good one.

Things I'd like changed:

* The process should start in March or April, not January.

* The four early states should be at least one week apart from each other.

* Remaining states should vote in regional blocs, as others have suggested. The order of the regions can rotate every four years so that each region gets a chance to go first. Each region should have three weeks' lead time after the previous contest for the candidates to focus on that region.

* No early voting or voting by mail until the previous contest is complete.

* No superdelegates.

Posted by Rachel Q | February 13, 2008 8:23 PM

I really like the post by bob, who wrote,

"My idea is to make them earn it by announcing beforehand that the state with the highest per capita turnout in the general election (MN in 2004, but IA and NH are close) would get to go first."

I've thought for a while that we should have a spaced out primary with states in different time slots each year, but this is a brilliant way to get all politicians squarely behind increasing voter turnout.

I also wanted to note that I think the Democratic party has been right on track about having proportional representation in the primaries. I think that the general election should be decided that way as well.

Posted by Sally | February 14, 2008 12:37 AM

Some good comments here. I generally think that the word pandering in this string should be interpreted "learning what various voters think about key issues".

Its a good feature of the process. That many candidates just use sound bytes that they dont really mean, also is important. It indicates what type of person they are.

Lets have lots of regional primaries with plenty of pandering.

Posted by Kim | February 14, 2008 8:35 AM

Ideal: Three regions, based on time zones, on a rotating basis in January, February, and March.

I like the general idea of regional contests on a rotating schedule. But I fear that it could produce a regional candiate. For instance, imagine the southeast region going first this year. Would it have given Huckabee enough momentum to propel him to victory everywhere? We could find ourselves facing the typical Iowa and New Hampshire scenario, only on a larger scale.

How about a modified regional contest based roughly on time zones? To make it more competitive, combine the Mountain and Pacific time zones. You get a great cross-section: the deep South with the New England coast; California and the rural mountains; Minnesota and Mississippi. While the Eastern zone would have a greater impact (about 141 million people overall, compared with 85 million in the Central and 67 million in the Mountain/West), no zone would be neglected. The contests takes place between January and March on a rotating basis.

Posted by Ryan | February 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Ideal: Three regions, based on time zones, on a rotating basis in January, February, and March.

I like the general idea of regional contests on a rotating schedule. But I fear that it could produce a regional candiate. For instance, imagine the southeast region going first this year. Would it have given Huckabee enough momentum to propel him to victory everywhere? We could find ourselves facing the typical Iowa and New Hampshire scenario, only on a larger scale.

How about a modified regional contest based roughly on time zones? To make it more competitive, combine the Mountain and Pacific time zones. You get a great cross-section: the deep South with the New England coast; California and the rural mountains; Minnesota and Mississippi. While the Eastern zone would have a greater impact (about 141 million people overall, compared with 85 million in the Central and 67 million in the Mountain/West), no zone would be neglected. The contests takes place between January and March on a rotating basis.

Posted by Ryan | February 14, 2008 9:31 AM

If you have strictly regional super primaries, then that would give candidates from whichever region went first too much of an advantage. That's why I prefer either a completely random lottery to determine which states vote which week or selecting states that represent a mix of regions and populations each week.

The general election requires exactly the skills that are needed to win a bunch of super primaries rather than those needed to win Iowa or New Hampshire. We should want a candidate who is telegenic, able to organize and get out his vote in several diverse states at once, and able to raise lots of money from voters not lobbyists and corporations.

Posted by Ron | February 14, 2008 11:02 AM

A lot of good ideas here:

1) Dislike the idea of a national primary or regional sub-primaries

2) Agree that the calendar should be spaced out more, if there is a Super Tuesday it should come at the end, not near the beginning

3) Like the idea of a lottery to see which states go first.

4) I have no problem with caucuses, especially in small states with a tradition of direct democracy. Everybody should go down to their town meeting hall every four years and talk to their neighbors. Got kids? Bring 'em! Just make it a holiday, arrange transport for the poor, elderly and disabled, have a buffet available, and make it a community thing. Police, firemen, nurses etc. can caucus in their place of work.

Posted by Scott de B. | February 14, 2008 12:56 PM

Everybody should go down to their town meeting hall every four years and talk to their neighbors.

Scott de B: Maybe every body should do this, but not everybody can. I also think secret ballots are far superior, as well.

I realize the whole "caucus vs. primary" debate is being conducted amidst the backdrop of the Clinton vs. Obama race. But the thing is, if Obama is as strong as many of his supporters believe, he should be winning comfortably either way. So, his mandate would actually be stronger under an all primary system, because it would leave no room for doubt. There's a non-trivial chance, that, if Clinton should finish strongly, she could lose out to Obama in the pledged delegate race, but beat him out in the popular vote. Why leave room for this type of ambiguity? If neighbors want to get together and make their case for the candidates they support, they can do so. Hold voter forums, say, and community gatherings. There's just no need to undertake this task with a process that unfairly harms the opportunity to vote of those with less schedule flexibility and reduced access to day care or eldercare (i.e, less affluent voters).

Posted by Jasper | February 14, 2008 5:01 PM

I actually like the calendar. I think there should be more time between primaries, but i like the model of small states first, building up into a super tuesday event or something.

I like small states because retail politics matter. It doesnt matter how much cash you have, or how much name recognition you have. Voters actually get to hear issues and make informed decisions on who would be a better candidate.

I really doubt that if we had a national primary, that a barack obama could beat a hillary clinton.

How about we make a calendar bsed on state's population? The Smallest states go first, where retail politics matter more than name recognition, and everybody gets a say. The Bigger states would still matter because a candidate cant get enough delegates in the smaller states to win the nomination.

Posted by freaktown | February 14, 2008 5:15 PM

I actually like the calendar. I think there should be more time between primaries, but i like the model of small states first, building up into a super tuesday event or something.

I like small states because retail politics matter. It doesnt matter how much cash you have, or how much name recognition you have. Voters actually get to hear issues and make informed decisions on who would be a better candidate.

I really doubt that if we had a national primary, that a barack obama could beat a hillary clinton.

How about we make a calendar based on state's population? The Smallest states go first, where retail politics matter more than name recognition, and everybody gets a say. The Bigger states would still matter because a candidate cant get enough delegates in the smaller states to win the nomination.

Posted by freaktown | February 14, 2008 5:15 PM

My idea is a rotating series of 12 "mini-regional" primaries of 4-6 states and territories, spread over 6 months, with a contest every 2 weeks. that allows for some retail campaigning , which will be mostly done in states of the contest that goes first. The mini-regions will be contiguous blocs as far as possible, which will be better for a poorer candidate ( less travel and TV advertising cost).
The mini-regions will be small enough that winning one would notcompletely determine the race as well

Posted by stonetools | February 14, 2008 7:16 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Some very intriguing proposals have been offered above. Here is my humble proposal, if hypothetically speaking, I had the power to implement it:

Here are the goals that I believe any calendar revision should meet:

1) Postponement of primaries and caucuses, as deep into the New Year as possible.

2) The absolute protection of the roles of the two early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

3) Reducing the influence of money, and increasing the influence of all other factors in candidate selection.

4) Grouping a small number of states (instead of Super Tuesday-style primary days) into small, geographically-clustered bloc primaries.

5) Developing a broad consensus as to the calendar, and not permitting - by law - any state from jumping to the head of the line, such as many states (notably Michigan and Florida), have done (or been forced to do by Michigan and Florida's actions).

Here's how I get to each of these:

1) Voter fatigue (as well as candidate and staff fatigue) sets in very quickly.

Accordingly, Iowa and NH should not go any earlier than Feb. 1. (I actually would prefer not to have them any earlier than late March, in order to shorten the calendar and improve the weather, but I'd be willing to compromise on that in service of the larger goals).

The public does not enjoy these two-year presidential campaigns. (Those of us who read and post on these blogs do, but we are a small, small sliver of the electorate.) While the prior year to the election will still be devoted to preparation, we will not be subjected to what we had in this cycle - campaigning through the holidays, to the detriment of all parties concerned.

2) The historic roles of Iowa and NH must be preserved at all costs, for two reasons:

a) The electorates of those states take the process VERY seriously. We would probably all agree that a couple of small states should go first. Why not those who have developed a lifetime of skill at vetting candidates?

b) It is vital, in order to avoid the spectacles of those candidates attempting to buy wins, that the little candidate (underfinanced and unknown) have a chance against the well-financed and famous ones. The existence of retail campaigning must be preserved to keep that opportunity for fairness.

3) To reduce the influence of money/4) abolition of Super Tuesday-style primaries

The best way to reduce the influence of money is to ban spectacles such as Super Tuesday. It is too expensive for candidates to buy TV ads and campaign everywhere at once, and it's really pointless, when you come right down to it. Does your state really have influence when it has to share the limelight with 22 others voting on the same day - no matter how big it is?

So what we do is - once we get past Iowa and New Hampshire, we set up small blocs of states, going in regular order every week, in a similar method to the NFL schedule.

In what order should they go? Well, I agree w/ the poster above who said they should have the choice, via a weighted lottery. If they want to go early, they can - or if they want to wait, they can, given that a scenario like the current Obama/HRC delegate battle could take place. This also would resolve questions about climate - the cold-weather states would likely prefer to go last.

Here's how I'd parcel out the blocs (factors include size, contiguous borders, media markets, demographics)

1) New England minus New Hampshire.

2) New York, Connecticut.

3) Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware. (Those are populous states, but they are in the cold weather, and the media markets overlap.)

4) Potomac/Chesapeake primary - that worked perfectly this year- Maryland, DC, Virginia.

5) Florida (a class by itself).
6) Texas (likewise).

7) The Carolinas and Georgia.

8) Gulf Coast (sorta) primary (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas.)

9) California (class by itself.)

10) Pacific Northwest (Washington State, Oregon, Alaska) plus Hawaii (it has to go sometime).

11) Mountain West primary - Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming. (That is a vast area, but the media markets are cheap - this could go near the end).

12) Great Plains primary - the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma.

13) Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee.

14) Michigan, Indiana.

15) Minnesota, Wisconsin.

16) Missouri, Arkansas.

17) Illinois.

This would leave 17 primary dates. They could be staggered throughout the winter and spring and early summer (i.e., there could be two weeks before a particularly large bloc votes). They would finish in the first two weeks of June, leaving plenty of time to mend fences before conventions.

To return to the question of how to line them up:

I would use a weighted random lottery to distribute choice of position. (I.e., CA would be granted disproportionate weight in the lottery equal to its Electoral College votes, as would the blocs with more populous states). Once all the spots are drawn, each bloc can move into slot 1 through 17.

I would re-run the lottery each cycle, with a couple of provisions (i.e., no bloc can have the first choice twice, the last choice twice, etc.)

Any takers?

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 15, 2008 3:46 PM

1) Rank the states from smallest to largest population.
2) Divide them into 5 groups of 10.
3) 10 smallest go in January, 10 2nd smallest go in Feb, 10 3rd smallest in March, 10 4th smallest in April, 10 5th smallest in May. Conventions in June.
4) Within each month, 2 or 3 per week, determined by random draw.

Posted by Mike D | February 18, 2008 4:39 PM

Comments (38)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives