Talk Elections

One of the frequent criticisms heard regarding the party nomination process is that Iowa and New Hampshire hold a very disproportionate amount of influence, and much of the nation's population has virtually no voice at all.  However, it is also argued that by staging the nomination in several small pieces, the field can gradually winnow down, there is greater opportunity for bartering and coalitions.  Moreover, voters can develop informed opinions in the early states by actually interacting with candidates.

I believe there is merit to both sides.

Thus, my proposal is to hold it in two stages. 

Round 1: National primary, each state holds their event the way they normally would and allocate (non-committed) delegates. 

Round 2: Top two or three finalists (measured in delegates not raw votes just as the nomination is) advance to run-off.  In my view, even if a candidate gains more than 50% of hypothetical delegates in this first round, we still go to a second round. This run-off takes place in the usual way, starting with few small states and so on..

I think three candidates in the run-off is a bit better in order to ensure that a consensus candidate can emerge, but you could argue for top two.  The beauty of this system is that the whole country has a voice and provides information about its preferences thus shaping the second round.  Then, the two or three finalists still receive intense scrutiny and field lots of questions from voters.  I don't think a one-shot national election-type nomination vote makes sense, because what happens when Pat Buchanan or Mike Gravel wins with 21% of the delegates?

Who benefits?  Well, perhaps a Rudy Giuliani who can buy tons of airtime nationwide but wouldn't necessarily do well in Iowa or NH specifically.  Conversely, it would probably be bad for a John Edwards, who relies on small-town politicking.  Regardless of the individuals, this system would arguably strike a nice balance.

What do you think?

I think starting off with a nationwide vote would really undermine the influence of the individual states.  The top three contenders in the nationwide vote will always be the wealthiest with the highest name recognition.  You see how Iowa and New Hampshire often establish a near-unstoppable front-runner, that would just happen on a much larger scale if there was a nationwide primary. 

My idea is rotate in every election year the order of the states.  The country should be divided into four regions, with no more than one state per region having a primary on any given week.  There would be two or four primaries per week, with two primaries per week at the beginning of the contest and as it nears the end switch to four per week.  The contest would take place between january and june, with conventions held in july.  I would also greatly reduce the amount of "superdelegates."

I also think that if Iowa and New Hampshire throw a fit about giving up their right to hold the first primary/caucus, they should be denied delegates at the convention if they don't hold their contest on the date selected by the national party. 

Have all the primaries be on one day, that would be fine.

Wow. I have been saying that since 2000 and no one has ever agreed with me.

I say do 5 primaries per Tuesday for 11 consecutive weeks.  Divide the states into 5 groups by regions of country and take one per each group each week.  Rotate so each state gets a chance each year to be first.

I agree completely. It is appalling to me that we let two states, states that do not even represent the whole country well at all demographically, have such a grip on the nominating process. This isn't an election for President of Iowa and New Hampshire, it's an election for the United States of America, and I don't see why every state shouldn't have the same ability to make their vote count.

All primaries should be held on the same day, and it should be later, such as the first Tuesday of May.

What are the dynamics that lead to a shift in this process?  It's interesting that even as other aspects of politics adapt to 21st century technology and priorities, the prominence of Iowa and NH remains entrenched.

Armed revolution.

I like it the way it is.

Why? It's totally unfair. Why should certain states always have more power than others when determining the candidates. The way it's set up, Iowans are  more important than New Jerseans or other states that have late primaries. That shouldn't be.

I also agree.

Could you guys offer an explanation as to why you think it would be better this way?  We know my point of view and argument, but i'd like to see why you guys prefer the nationwide primary. 

It leads to better campaigns for the primary because they wont be able to turn it around half way through. This one-day primary forces candidates to give it all they have. In other words, it will eliminate the likelyhood of the candidates being two people who said the right thing on Super Tuesday. That's my main reason, that and it would save an anus load of time.

A national primary would make money an even more deciding factor in who gets the nomination. When we have a few primaries at first, at least person to person campaigning counts for something.

Let me suggest an alternative.

First, no more than one state in a region (northeast, south, midwest, west) may hold a delegate selction on a single day (this is to prevent a steamroller effect).

Second, the smaller states should get preference in the early selection process to offset the impact of money.  The formula for this is that delegate selection cannot begin in any jurisdiction before the first date of the month indicated in the following table (by delegate selection, I mean primary, caucus or convention), as indicated by the political size of the jurisdiction (state/dc/territority)

January                    No more than 4 congressional districts

February                  No more than 9 congressional districts

March                       No more than 17 congressional districts

April                          No more than 22 congressional districts

May                          No more than 44 congressional districts

June                         Any

Is saying the right thing on super tuesday necessarily bad?  I think one of the biggest benefits to state-by-state primaries is the fact that candidates really have to look at the issues most affecting those individual states.  Unfortunately it doesn't count for crap once they are governing. 

CARLHAYDEN, i definitely think your idea is a fresh and very good one, but there might be a couple problems.  though i love the congressional district idea, most states that have few districts (think plains states or states like new hampshire) don't have much in the way of minorities, and often tend to be more conservative.  liberals and minorities might not like that idea.  secondly, residents of the biggest states would definitely complain if you force them to wait until the very end of the primary season, california would be the only state ineligible to hold a primary before june.  but with a little tinkering, i think that plan could definitely be successful. 

Although I introduced this thread, I will somewhat play devil's advocate by suggesting that Cali., NY, other big states that don't receive fair amount of attention in the nomination process (not to mention in the general election) somewhat offset that by contributing lots of dough and support from political/media opinion shapers.  Granted, this is particularly true of NYC/Cali, but also NJ, PA etc. can impact the race that way.

Also, can states start stepping on Iowa and NH's toes by holding non-binding "Beauty pageants"?  I think Fla. has held a fairly important Nov./Dec. straw poll in the past, for example.  The key is to get buy-in from the candidates to show up - largely a matter of herd mentality as two key people can create a stampede.

Ultimately, this is a matter of game theory in that in a non-repetitive interaction, the most influential people in the parties will oppose anything to challenge early state supremacy.  Why?  Because many (or most) happen to be candidates or possible candidates for prez, and given the system is unlikely to change between now and the next election, the system is not challenged and is therefore perpetuated.  You would need a DNC/RNC chair without a dog in the fight to be empowered to effect change in conjunction with other leaders of party constituencies.

All primaries should be held on the same day, that way the influence Iowa has over the election process is negated.  From there, the parties can identify who they want to nominate for the November elections.

No, but it urks me how a candidate can be a pathetic waste of cells and organs for an entire year...and then finish second (or even first!) because they rattled off ONE good line of crap.

very true, fortunately one-line politicians usually see their campaigns crumble when the pressure is really on.

The problem with having all primaries on the same day is in a multi-candidate race it's very unlikely any candidate will win a majority.

agreed. 

I still think a sumo wrestling match would be the fairest and best method.

Am I the only one who thinks that Presidential candidates should be selected by who tells the best "Yo Mama" joke? I think a President Murphy or President Chapelle would be an intriguing and beneficial step for the country to take.

The parties should go back to the good old days when the party bosses in smoke filled rooms picked the candidates.

Ah, for the good old days, when a party goes into the convention and the delegates cannot agree on a candidate, and it takes 47 smokey, sweaty, fist flying, cross word exchanging ballots to pick a candidate, a dark horse that hardly anybody had heard of, let alone thought of.

Bring back the drama, the excitement, the tension, the uncertainty, the floor fights and the undemocratic bruhaha of yesteryear.

I doesn't get any better than that. 

I agree with Winfield, after all that's how the "Minor" Parties do it.
Better yet, let's just have one election with everyone on the ballot, choose the electors independently of one another (as opposed to Winner-take-all or Congressional) and be confused for two months on who is gonna be the next President.
California gets 55 EV, people in Cali vote for 55 individual electors, top 55 vote getters are the States Electors. etc for every State

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this.

The reason for giving the small states priority is that it reduces the effectiveness of money and media support, and gives the voters a chance to actually vet the candidates.

I still sympathize with Hubert Humphrey who compained in 1960 that he simply cound't compete with Jack's 'jack' (money).

What regions would we use? They would need to be of equal in the number of states, which makes it difficult. Some regions, such as the Northeast, have many states that are relatively small geographically, while others, such as the Great Plains, have a few, large states.

I'll make an attempt at dividing the country into 5 regions:

Northeast:
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
(District of Columbia)*

Midwest:
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Ohio
Kentucky
Indiana
Michigan
Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

South:
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Tennessee
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas

Plains and Mountains:
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Utah
Idaho

West and Southwest:
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii

*Floats in the calendar attached to Maryland. Will always hold their primary the same date as Maryland.

American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and Democrats Abroad each have votes in the DNC but not the RNC. The best, if rather unfair, solution would be for them to always vote last, given that they do not vote in the general election anyway.

Some of these groupings are very artificial (Midwest being the most notable for the inclusions of KY, WV and PA), but they need to each have 10 states.

To update and amplify, there are a few other matters which would make the system more responsible.

First, primaries should be open ONLY to those affiliating at least 30 calendar days in advance of the primary with the party in whose primary they which to cast a ballot.

Second, I believe that all states with primaries should follow the example which Oregon had (and may still have) of allowing the candidates listed on the ballot to make a brief statement to the prospective voters to be included in the phamplet sent to the voters for a nominal fee.

Third, all government funded radio and television stations should be required to provided a modicum of coverage to all ballot qualified candidates.

Two men enters one man leaves. I like that system.

Sorry Verily, but as you can see, there a multiple candidates for the party nomination in both major parties (not just two).

Furthermore, it is not unusual for a candidate to 'lose' a primary and emerge stonger thereafter if he/she signicantly exceeded expectations.

Easy example is McCarthy losing in New Hampsire in 1968.  He lost to a write in candidate, but did better than expected.

We need to go back to the old style  conventions.  Primaries should play a role, but not nearly as much as they do now.  Have a primary for every state, with primaries controlling around 40% of the delegates.  This allows another candidate to possibly emerge to defeat the candidate who won the primaries.  Let the establishment decide.