I think this is how parties should nominate candidates for Prez.

[awfernan2002]

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?

[awfernan2002]

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.

[awfernan2002]

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.