Traditionally, the Democratic Party has reserved certain states for early primaries in order to create a more level playing field for presidential candidates. The benefit in having a small state vote early is that it gives candidates who have less money and less name recognition but big ideas a chance to take their message and test it in states which have affordable media markets and small towns which are amenable to retail politicking.
Over the years, most of the country accepted the notion that Iowa and New Hampshire had a place at the front of the line. Candidates would visit these two states, make their case, and then take the message on to Super Tuesday or to some other point in the election cycle when they just couldn't press on anymore.
What changed is that more and more, candidates started banking their entire campaign on these early states. So, voters in later states never had a chance to vote on candidates. And in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, the early states essentially ended up deciding the nominee. The early states had gained too much influence by way of the type of campaigns that were being run by the candidates.
Thus the jockeying for a process called "front loading" began. In 1996, California moved it's primary up from June to March, prompting a host of other states do the same so as to not be over shadowed. It happened again in 2000 and in 2004, and of course this year we saw Florida and Michigan test the limits by breaking Party rules and entering the early window. More states would have done this if they could have (an added benefit of front loading was that it gave the presumptive nominee more time to build a financial war chest for the general election).
Yet, with all of the unfairness there is in early states going first, there is still an inherent benefit in candidates only having to play in a limited number of states from the get-go. Candidates such as Howard Dean, John Edwards - even Barack Obama, were able to make national names for themselves because of the benefit of focusing on smaller, early state primaries. Better known candidates such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton didn't fare as well. McCain decided not to compete in Iowa, and Clinton was encouraged to do the same.
But how to break the unfair influence that these early states now have? It's harder than one might think.
A national primary is a bad idea, because it favors the candidate who has the most money and name recognition from day one. There is also no weeding out process, and it could produce a nominee who emerges with 30% of the vote. The "American Plan" is another proposal which, as it happens, seems to be a formal model for how things worked out this year. The National Association of Secretaries of State have previously offered the rotating regional primary plan which is something I've been a fan of ( I wrote a bit more on these plans in a post on April 1).
Personally, I like the idea of leaving the early states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina in - and having them all vote on the same day. If candidates don't have enough money to compete in all four, they can focus on one state and live to fight another day in the next round. I'd also like to see a delegate allocation window which starts in February instead of January.
. . .
The problem with all of this, is that the DNC (and the RNC for that matter) can set primary rules, but it's the states that set their own elections. So really all it takes is one state senator, one secretary of state, on person to propose a law moving a state's primary and there isn't much that the DNC can do about it. So we on the DNC can design a calendar, but we can't actually set the elections in each state. It's a delicate balance. Case in point: the DNC spent two years working on a proposed plan in 2005 and 2006, only to see it thwarted by two states in 2007.
The bottom line is that, obviously, our system of nominating presidential candidates is in need of reform. But as much as we complain about the current system, it does work astonishingly well considering the barriers that exist.
The biggest thing that was debunked this year is that Iowa and New Hampshire voters have a higher level of understanding and participation in the process and thus must go first each year. That's clearly out now and it's time that the monopoly that these two states have had on the early process ends (though it probably won't - there is a lot of institutional protection around these two states).
For now, early states serve a purpose that is still relevant today. But as we've seen in this year's 50-state primary, if you give any state enough time and attention - the voters will tune-in and they will turnout.
Long post, but I've thought about this a lot.
On they system being pretty good, except for the Florida and Michigan screwing things up: Agreed. I thought it was wonderful the way you structured things this year: Four small sates with ethnic and regional diversity, going one at a time to kick it all off with some retail campaigning in cheap media markets... Then super Tuesday... then a smattering of mid-sized states, one or two at a time... then... if it weren't for the Florida and Michigan stupidity, this year would have been perfect. Unfortunately, it's hard to make some sort of coordinated reform to the process, because you'll always have states like Florida and Michigan being dumb. The one carrot that you have here, which I think you should really play hard, is offering states more delegates than they would otherwise get to go later in the process. It's certainly a lot better than your "Stick" option (taking away delegates), and it would make the PR battle with uncooperative states in the future a lot easier if you made it very clear that you were willing to give them more delegates if they had waited, instead of just telling them to wait their turn "or else." Still, you don't have ideal means to enforce your schedule, unless you put something in the rules to the effect of "in the event that any state should break the scheduling rules in scheduling their state sanctioned contest, an alternate contest shall be organized by the DNC for the purposes of delegate allocation on an appropriate date." (either a caucus, "fire house primary" or vote-by-mail)
Now, I'm gonna pretend that I COULD just mess around with the schedule however I wanted. I'm not really sure I like the "random cluster" plan... If you're really going for random setting the sum of the electoral votes isn't the way to go, because it makes it makes certain combinations more likely. If you want random, just say "on this day, x randomly selected states with no more than y electoral votes, and have y rise for each day. Or maybe use population rank instead. that way, you're still building up state size, but It won't have to add up to some arcane sum. If you want to go this way, I'd also suggest leaving a bit more time between primary days as you go on, so they have so reasonable lead up to the bigger states.
However, I don't really like the "totally random" idea, because I feel that it's not just important they be small states, you need regional balance, and you want the early states to be something resembling swings states... we don't want either Mississippi or my home state of Massachusetts deciding the nominee, because we want them to be acceptable to voters in culturally politically moderate areas.
I actually sorta like the four states you picked this year to kick it off, and the idea of having them all go at once is intriguing (although I think the way you did it this year is a pretty sure way of avoiding a sweep, too... 5 days of overhype about whoever won Iowa is enough to kick in those New Hampshirite's contrarian instinct, but not enough time for the narrative of that person as clear frontrunner to solidify). Anyways, after the first four, I think you should have series of Mid-sized regionally balanced states go one, MAYBE two at a time... maybe Wisconsin, Virginia, Oregon, and Tennessee? Michigan might be pushing it, but I suppose they might work at the end of the series, once anyone who's fundraising is going to kick off has kicked off, and name recognition for serious competitors is near universal, if doing so would get them to shut up about how the system's unfair. Florida is categorically too big to go before super Tuesday, though.
You would probably want to give two weeks between the last mid-sized state and Super Tuesday... and use delegate incentives to states willing to go latter Limit Super Tuesday to no more than about a dozen states... (because the real point of these primaries is to build up party organization, right?)
After that, I think it should be a trickle of a couple states every week... with maybe a Mini super Tuesday somewhere in there... if Florida persists in being a pain, you could offer to try to put them by themselves and clear the schedule for two or three weeks before hand, so they can be like Pennsylvania was this year, but they absolutely can't go earlier than Super Tuesday.
Also, I'm not opposed to some degree of rotation within regions... i.e. NH-VT-ME, IA-SD, NV-NM, ect.
Regional cycle
Posted by: Sensible Person. | June 10, 2008 at 02:59 PM
The biggest problem with this is that you need not one, but two different plans.
The first plan is however you wish to reapportion the states.
The second plan is how you plan to get the states to go along with this.
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 03:30 PM
This one is for Truth:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121313198741161919.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The presumed Democratic nominee, taking questions from reporters Tuesday, also indicated he would raise the 15% capital-gains tax on the income from sales of investments to about 20%--not the near-doubling to 28% that Republicans and others have warned Sen. Obama would seek and would put the economy at some risk by doing so.
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Heh, has anyone noticed that McCain seems to attract lots of protesters?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD917ENI80
I don't think it's being planned by anyone, because there's little point to it and it's so unsightly. Rather, I suspect there are many like me who are bitter towards the Republican party right now (though I wouldn't do anything disruptive like that).
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 04:32 PM
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_100022_11/06/2008_97579
It's interesting to see the foreign perspectives on this race.
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 05:38 PM
"The biggest thing that was debunked this year is that Iowa and New Hampshire voters have a higher level of understanding and participation in the process and thus must go first each year. That's clearly out now and it's time that the monopoly that these two states have had on the early process ends (though it probably won't - there is a lot of institutional protection around these two states)."
ARE YOU SERIOUS???
You saw what happened when we tried to get people involved in NV! THEY WERE CLUELESS! It took forever to convince them that we were there for the caucus in January rather than the general in November!!
I definitely don't think that they're smarter on the issues in Iowa or New Hampshire, but at least they knew something was going on!
The monopoly sucks and I agree something must be done, but it will take multiple cycles to convince people in other states that there is a new election.
Posted by: Mindy | June 10, 2008 at 08:10 PM
Sensible Person: the DNC does in fact already award bonus delegates to states who go last in the nominating period. Both Montana and South Dakota received extra delegates for going last this year.
Mindy: true, it was tough for us to get the attention of Nevada voters, but they still turned out in record numbers. They act the same way in general elections, too - they just tune in later than voters in other states do.
Posted by: Mr Super | June 10, 2008 at 09:58 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121314230267962603.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
One more thing to write about, Mr. Super :) Not that you haven't already mentioned it a few times, but it would be interesting to see where you think the Republicans are likely to be vulnerable this year. Particularly because you mentioned your involvement with polling.
Unless that kind of information is held as some kind of advantage over the other party?
Posted by: Joe | June 10, 2008 at 10:06 PM
"Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number... And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent ... how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making"
Obama - CNBC - 3/27/08
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520/
He has never said he will set it at 20% and if he thinks there is no difference between 20% & 25%, where do you think it will end up?
--------------
I've never been a fan of the Democrats (Hillary included) wanting an economic stimulus extending unemployment benefits. You can't even call that an economic stimulus with a straight face. A real way to make unemployment work is:
a) offer the same benefit per week ($200-$400 or whatever it is) to an employer that hires the recently laid off employee with pay at least 75% of their previous employment check. Even better offer it to an employer that is about to lay off an employee that has worked at least 1 year for them to not let them go. To prevent abuse, make it a non-repeatable offer for that employee-employer relationship with the employer having to show a lower profit margin from the previous year.
b) offer it to the employee as employment gap insurance. In other words, if they get laid off and have to take a job for less money, the benefits can fill in up to matching previous wages (same max limits currently set in place)
Same time and max dollar limits as currently in place. I prefer plan “a”, but we don’t want to “reward” the “evil” small business do we?
Why do we want to punish people for working? I know if you are on unemployment and you receive any compensation (even temporary) then your check is that much less. If you take an education course, then you aren’t “looking for work” 24/7 so another penalty on your check. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
My low detail plan is more in the spirit of the "New Deal" except it makes it more likely an employee's actual skill set will be utilized. If we want to make it purely New Deal style then I guess you'd offer unemployed people work on green jobs and infrastructure. Even though I see the "community benefit" of that, it strikes me as odd to only offer an accountant, IT, sales rep, etc a shovel to make ends meet. Make it an option, but not the only option.
And of course, immediately stop all taxation of government checks (Social Security, Unemployment, Disability, etc). It should not be included in your AGI on any level.
Posted by: Truth | June 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Truth:
That quote I gave you is fresh. Your quote is about 3 months old. He finally came out and said that he thinks 20% is about right.
Isn't that exactly what you said he should do? Didn't Obama recently take one of Hillary's economic advisers on board?
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Personally, I like the idea of leaving the early states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina in - and having them all vote on the same day.
The biggest thing that was debunked this year is that Iowa and New Hampshire voters have a higher level of understanding and participation in the process and thus must go first each year. That's clearly out now and it's time that the monopoly that these two states have had on the early process ends
Mr. Super
-----------------------
You've lost me there as those two thoughts seem at odds with each other. No state should be entitled here. That is not democracy. I prefer the simple lottery of calendar, but the idea of dividing the map into regions is intriguing. Put all 50 states into one of the four categories that IA – NH – NV – SC matches.
The very first primary date should have two states (four is too many if we are going to talk about limited candidate funds). First state is chosen completely at random. The next state is chosen completely at random, but all the states in the first state’s region are taken out of contention. These two states will be the very first primary date (Saturday is better than Tuesday). The next primary date will be two weeks away. They will be at random from the final two regions. From here, the lower candidates can drop out and we can have a primary every Saturday. I would do 3-4 states a week with them being in close proximity to each other (but still randomly). Maybe one more two week break (but no more) at the mid point to give the candidates time to reassess (and possibly even drop out).
Seriously, the RNC & DNC are making this way too hard. Traditions? Does that mean the original colonies should go first? Spare me your politics. They have no place in a truly fair election. I actually applaud Michigan and Florida for making this a real issue that the common voter can now grasp. The DNC however should be punished for their gross mishandling of the situation.
So the calendar that never should have been an issue to begin with has been solved. What about the "audacity" of candidates and debate moderators refusing to force the platforms to be more than slogans and headlines? How can anybody make an informed decision if we continue holding presidential candidates to such an incredibly low standard?
How about the candidate issues and accomplishments version of http://www.usaspending.gov/
Imagine one central location for this with voters being able to click "Economy" -> "Economic Stimulus" -> "Unemployment" and seeing a multi-page explanation by that candidate on just that issue. Links to their history (voting record, private sector accomplishments/failures), professional opinions and a place to ask a question for detail or explanation.
Posted by: Truth | June 11, 2008 at 01:01 AM
"Obama ruled out a return to capital gains tax rates of 40 percent or higher, saying nobody is talking about that. And he laid out the general theme of this tax plans."
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080610c/
Obama has always had that 20% to 28% ambiguity. They asked Hillary if she'd go over 20% and she stated NO. obama always refuses to answer yes or no. Until he does that I have to assume that 28% is on the table. Once Obama does this, I will be happier on this issue. Unlike Obama supporters, I will not call him a flip flopper if he says it clearly and sticks to it. The funny thing is we are talking about long term capital gains here, so why wouldn't we want to discourage day traders by making it more profitable to hold onto their capital investment?
Posted by: Truth | June 11, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Four proposals:
1. Institute a total of four primaries. The states would be selected entirely at random, and the numbers of people eligible to vote in each successive primary would be larger than the number in the preceding primary.
2. Combine popular vote totals state by state.
3. If no candidate has a majority of the votes at the end of the season, conduct a runoff between the top two candidates still lin the race.
4. Skip the convention. Use the money that would otherwise be spent on the convention to promote the nominee.
Posted by: Gary Chartier | June 11, 2008 at 06:22 AM
Truth: you're being too linear. My first statement was in reference to the early states, I only mentioned those four because they currently are the early states we have.
My continued thought was that, while we should have early states, Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have a monopoly on the process.
Everyone else: Random drawing won't work. First of all, early states need to be small states if they are to uphold the idea of a level playing field (i.e. a candidate with less money can compete with a candidate who has more money). Second, not all states are able to host early primaries, so there has to be compliance from those who are interested in it.
And finally, there is politics in everything - and a lottery which awards a state an early primary does not take into account a state party's ability to organize or any electoral history in that region. Hosting an early primary is a much heavier burden than hosting a primary in the mix of other states and not all Parties are able to pull it off (Nevada barely pulled it off this time).
The DNC actually got it right on this issue: they had a bid process by states that were actually interested in going early (11 states applied) and selected four which represented regional, ethnic and economic diversity. A bid process seems to work well.
As for the conventions: they are very necessary. This is where the Parties present their candidate and running mate to the nation, the non-political viewing public. It is a kicking-off point for the general election, it provides a total presentation of the Party and the ticket at one time in place. If that information is trickled out over a period of months, most of those things would be missed.
Posted by: Mr Super | June 11, 2008 at 07:40 AM
Well, Truth, I guess I'll have to say that if he says that 20% seems right, it'll end up at 20%. Until I have some reason to believe he'll set it higher.
Is the 20% figure so set in stone as correct that no market conditions and no economist could believe it better set to, I don't know, 22%?
Perhaps because of the way that paper does the preview, you couldn't read the whole thing, but I seem to recall there being several other tidbits in that article that you may not have seen, like exempting the small businesses (and people who don't have much money) from the capital gains tax entirely.
Posted by: Joe | June 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Reid says primary calendar 'fundamentally flawed'
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0dBbrr4D6YVlw_HNTxfbQDaZ9BwD9186FRO2
The head of the Democratic Senate is upset with the Primary Calendar as it exists. Wow, we'll see action now. Just like when we threw the Republicans out in 2006 to get our troops out of Iraq. Oh wait, the exact opposite happened with a surge; gas prices skyrocketed; economy took a dump. WAIT. Stay away from that calendar Reid.
Posted by: Truth | June 11, 2008 at 11:38 PM