RNC trying to move primaries later; will impose PR on states w/ early primaries

[Mr. Morden]

I was traveling last week, so I missed this story:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/05/rnc_recommends.php

The RNC's temporary delegate selection committee is going to recommend that the full RNC adopt rules that prohibit any states other than IA, NH, NV, and SC from holding primaries earlier than March.  IA, NH, NV, and SC would all have to go in February.  Any move to impose more specific primary ordering than that (a la the Ohio Plan) is dead.  Even this attempt to move all these primaries a month later is probably going to fail IMHO, as you're not going to be able to get 20 states to all move their primaries later.  Some of them will stick with their current Jan / Feb dates, and the RNC isn't going to strip away all the delegates from the offending states.

One additional wrinkle though is that this article says "any state that chooses to hold a nominating contest before April must award their delegates on an at least partly proportional basis."

Might not make any difference, but if that rule had been in force in 2008, then the GOP nomination fight definitely would have gone on longer.  Of course, not every year is going to be as wide open as 2008 was.


August 6 UPDATE: These rules changes have been adopted by the RNC, contingent on a similar set of rules changes being adopted by the DNC later this month:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/rnc_passes_cale.php

[Derek]

It's a good idea and provides more accurate results. Every GOP has a chance to decide.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I actually like the earlier primaries that begin right after the New Year, because it forces the campaigns to start almost right after the mid-terms.  I don't want every state bunched right up to the first week in February, but I would like a limit on the number of states that can vote each week with the 47 remaining states (incl DC) after IA, NH, SC, and NV.  If we limited it to 3 states per week in either party, we would have it wrapped up by the last week in May or the first week in June and then the general campaign can get started and then the states who don't combine the presidential and state primaries can have their state primaries in the summer months (June-August).

[Derek]

A longer campaign leads to more attacks though.

[Joe Biden 2020]

A longer campaign leads to more attacks though.

Some could say that you would learn who the candidate REALLY is.  I don't really buy that, but I like longer campaigns because I am a huge political junkie and can't wait until Wednesday, November 3, 2010 when the 2012 Presidential Campaign begins with the March to Iowa.

[Franzl]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

[© tweed]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

bullsh**t, the USA is just more naked about it

[Derek]

A shorter campaign season means less money and less corruption too but they start raising money 2 years in advance anyways.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I like the idea that the penalty for going early is proportionality.  It gives a candidate who expects a state to go for him a reason push the state party to go later.

But really, the only solution for the earlier and earlier phenomenon is for one or both of the major parties to decide they'll run their Presidential nominating process themselves without the involvement (or financing) of the States.

[Vepres]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

I forgot that western European countries define what is "normal".

[Franzl]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

I forgot that western European countries define what is "normal".

Do you find campaigns that last multiple years desirable?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

I forgot that western European countries define what is "normal".

Do you find campaigns that last multiple years desirable?

Define "campaign".  We have no institutionalized "leader of the opposition".

[Lief 🗽]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

I forgot that western European countries define what is "normal".

It's not just western European countries, but most democracies. And yes, the definition of normal is "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural," so if the vast majority of democracies do it, it is normal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Length of campaign depends on how 'campaign' is defined. You could make an argument that - in a democracy - the campaign lasts for all but the day after polling day; and in that regard, the U.S is exceptional. But the period of intensive media coverage and public interest is much longer in the U.S than most places. The main difference is the institution of the primary.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In normal countries, federal campaigns last a few weeks....not a few years.

I forgot that western European countries define what is "normal".

Do you find campaigns that last multiple years desirable?

Define "campaign".  We have no institutionalized "leader of the opposition".

Leader of the Opposition is not merely a campaigning institution.

[Mr. Morden]

Latest developments here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/new-calendar-rules-could-create-chaos-for-gop-in-2012/58820/

and here:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/06/rnc_set_to_make.php

The rules committee looks likely to pass language that would do the following:

-If Iowa, NH, NV, or SC hold primaries/caucuses before Feb. 1, they lose half their delegates.
-If any other state holds primaries/caucuses before March 1, they lose half their delegates.
-Any state that holds primaries/caucuses before April 1 has to award their delegates on a proportional basis, not WTA statewide or WTA by district.
-The RNC chairman (Michael Steele) will be able to grant waivers to states, to allow them to avoid the 50% delegate penalty if he wishes.  It looks like he'd be free to decide on the basis of any criteria he likes.

The full RNC would vote on these changes in August of this year in a simple up or down vote, with no amendments allowed.  Either they would pass these changes, and they'd be binding for the 2012 cycle, or they'd be voted down, and the 2008 rules would still apply.  Any further reforms, like regional primaries and the like, are not going to happen in 2012.

PR and a 50% delegate penalty is not going to be enough to get every state to move their primary later.  In all likelihood, a few of the February primary states will move to March or April (possibly enough so that Super Tuesday is once again in early March, but possibly not), but many early Feb. primaries will stay put.  Which means that Iowa and New Hampshire will still vote in January, because they won't accept anyone else going first.

In short, I'd be pretty stunned if the 2012 primaries don't begin in January, just like last time.

[memphis]

Would it really be that hard for the Dems and the GOP to agree on a single day when they can both have their primary in every state/territory? The current system is a nightmare.

[California8429]

Unless the season starts way early like last time, I'd think it would start the first day of Jan. I mean no reason to go late Jan and lose half your delegates cuz other states are going in early Feb. If you're going to lose delegates, go way early right?

[Mr. Morden]

Would it really be that hard for the Dems and the GOP to agree on a single day when they can both have their primary in every state/territory? The current system is a nightmare.

Ah, but then the question is "What's the enforcement mechanism?".  What's to stop a few rogue states from voting earlier than the agreed national primary day?  Sure, the national parties could say "We won't recognize any early primary", but then the rogue states would say "Fine, we're voting early anyway.  We dare you to strip away our delegates and disenfranchise all those voters."...which is what happened with FL and MI last time around.  The national parties have no desire to go through that FL/MI fiasco again, so any penalties they give out this time will be weak.

As long as the national parties make the primary rules, yet outsource the actual running of the primaries to the individual states, we will be left with the chaos of the present system.  The only path for real reform would be to pass federal legislation that imposes order on the system.  Then the timing of the primaries would be enforceable by the courts.  But I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Mr. Morden]

Unless the season starts way early like last time, I'd think it would start the first day of Jan. I mean no reason to go late Jan and lose half your delegates cuz other states are going in early Feb. If you're going to lose delegates, go way early right?

Well, no one's going to schedule a primary on New Year's Day.  Who would show up to vote on New Year's Day?  My guess is that we could see something like this:

either Jan. 3rd, 4th, or 5th: Iowa
Jan. 10th: NH
Jan. 21st: NV and SC
Jan. 31st: FL
Feb. 7th: about 10 states or so....roughly half the number that voted on Super Tuesday last time around

MI voted in mid-January last time, but the legislation they passed made the move temporary.  Whereas Florida's move to late January was permanent.  It's possible that NH or NV/SC could go a week later, so maybe Iowa would end up voting in the second week of Jan. rather than the first, but I doubt it'll go later than that.

[California8429]

Unless the season starts way early like last time, I'd think it would start the first day of Jan. I mean no reason to go late Jan and lose half your delegates cuz other states are going in early Feb. If you're going to lose delegates, go way early right?

Well, no one's going to schedule a primary on New Year's Day.  Who would show up to vote on New Year's Day?  My guess is that we could see something like this:

either Jan. 3rd, 4th, or 5th: Iowa
Jan. 10th: NH
Jan. 21st: NV and SC
Jan. 31st: FL
Feb. 7th: about 10 states or so....roughly half the number that voted on Super Tuesday last time around

MI voted in mid-January last time, but the legislation they passed made the move temporary.  Whereas Florida's move to late January was permanent.  It's possible that NH or NV/SC could go a week later, so maybe Iowa would end up voting in the second week of Jan. rather than the first, but I doubt it'll go later than that.

sorry, I meant unless they started the early states the first day of Feb not Jan

[Mr. Morden]

Here's the memo on the proposed new RNC rules:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/Memo%20on%20TDSC%20Proposed%20Recommendation.pdf

A few differences from the details that I described earlier, such as the fact that the window to avoid delegate sanctions for most states would be the first Tuesday or March rather than March 1st.  Not a huge difference.  Also, apparently, according to this:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/07/rnc_aims_to_dra.php

it takes a 2/3rds vote of the RNC to pass these new rules, and they also only go into effect if the DNC passes similar rules.  Both the DNC and RNC will vote on these rules in August.  If either party votes them down, the 2008 rules will still apply.  But they're expected to pass, as there's little dissent on this within either party committee.  But of course, the real test is whether state legislators in Florida or Georgia or Missouri are going to want to move their primaries later to comply with this.  My guess is probably not.

Finally, it looks like the states themselves will be free to implement proportional representation into their delegate allocation schemes however they like.  My guess is that they'll set absurdly high thresholds to get any delegates.  Like say, PR for all candidates getting more than 20 or 25% of the vote....just because it'll minimize the number of delegates going to Ron Paul or Ron Paul-like candidates.

[Derek]

I like the idea if it could be enforced.

[TheGreatOne]

A longer campaign leads to more attacks though.

You can also make the argument that a shorter campaign means outrageous claims and hackish attacks will have more bite, because a canidate might not have the time to rebut.  A short campaign is also beneficial to establishment types like Romney, Gingrich, Palin and Huckabee, because it gives the electorate less time to learn about different canidates.  Most of all, a short campaign is less fun for us political junkies who have to wait four years for another Presidential campaign.   

[Joe Biden 2020]

If Mr. Morden is right and the primaries do start in January, that means we are only a year and a half from Iowa.