Reforming the Primary/Caucus System

[Frodo]

And here are the brief descriptions (from Wiki) of each reform proposal, along with their links:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graduated Random Presidential Primary System (American or California Plan)

Under this system the campaign period would be broken into ten two-week periods in which an escalating number of electoral votes would be contested. This plan was developed in response to the trend toward front-loading in recent primary campaigns and the influence wielded by Iowa and New Hampshire, which traditionally hold their nominating events before any other state.

Critics of the California Plan point out that its random selection system could lead to high travel costs for candidates, and that it may be biased toward liberal states.

Delaware Plan

The Delaware Plan is an attempt to provide all states with meaningful input into the electoral process. The states and territories are divided into four groups, by population. The smallest 12 states and all the territories by population would be the first group, or "pod". The smallest thirteen of the remaining states would be the second group, the next thirteen the third group, and the largest twelve states would form the final group.

The plan was originally proposed by the Republican National Committee in the spring of 2000, to take effect in the 2004 campaign. However, it was voted down by the general convention that summer.  Republican leaders worried that, if they acted unilaterally, that they would be handing a huge advantage to the Democrats. If the Republicans did indeed use this plan, it would be almost impossible to know who the GOP nominee would be until early or mid-June. But if the Democrats maintained their primary schedule unchanged, then the identity of the Democratic nominee might well be clear in March. This, said some Republican strategists, would provide the Democrats with a three-month "head start" on the general election.

There is also criticism that the Delaware Plan may be biased against more liberal candidates from either party. Although the first round of the primaries is pretty evenly split between Blue States and Red States, the second round has 2 Blue States to 10 Red, and the third round has 4 Blue States to 9 Red. This could bias both parties toward more conservative candidates within their ranks.

Rotating Regional Primary System

Under this system, party primaries/caucuses to select national convention delegates would be grouped by region beginning in 2012.

A lottery would be held to determine which region would begin the sequence the first year of the plan. The next presidential election year, the region that held the first position would move to the end of the sequence, and the other regions would move forward.

Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their leading positions in the presidential selection process based upon their tradition of encouraging retail politics.

Primaries/caucuses in each state of a given region would be scheduled on or soon after the first Tuesday in March, April, May or June of presidential election years. States in the same region wouldn't necessarily be required to hold their primaries/caucuses on the same day.

Interregional Primary Plan

In the Interregional Primary Plan, the country is divided into geographical regions. On each primary date from March to June, one state from each of six regions votes. Each election date would contain a wide variety of perspectives. The order of the states in each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state would have a chance to be among the first primary states. The primary criticism of this plan is that travel costs would be quite high: in each round, candidates would essentially have to cover the entire country in order to effectively campaign. Contrary to most reform plans, this would reduce the ability of lesser-funded candidates to build up from small contests to large ones.

National Primary

A national primary is a proposed system for conducting the United States presidential primaries and caucuses, in which all of the primaries and caucuses would occur on the same day

[Hashemite]

National primary, perhaps in the way the French Socialists had theirs in November 2006- a two round election held nationwide.

[True Federalist]

Other - Get the States entirely out of the business of running primaries and caucuses and let the political parties do it themselves (and pay for it themselves as well).

[Jake]

I like a national primary, or a five round system. Split the nation into ten zones, randomly select a state from each zone to go in each of five rounds. Put two weeks between each round for campaigning and a major televised debate. Then again, this year is better than most where there are early states which matter and provide momentum, but we have some sort of a national primary already on Feb. 5th.

[Frodo]

bump

[The Mikado]

Other: Preserve Status Quo.

[Senator Ben]

National Primary, with Iowa and New Hampshire going before everyone else.

[muon2]

I had a college student visit my office last week to get points to use in a debate where he was speaking against the American/California plan. I pointed out that one significant problem which is shared with any other lottery-based plan is the potential cost to the states due to the ever-changing date of the primary.

Obviously a number of states decided that they wanted to jump all over the calendar this year, but it wasn't a complete free-for-all. All the states that moved had to grapple with the changes to election requirements like filing and early voting, and those rules are not the same in every state. Also there are state like IL that couple the presidential primary to the primaries for all other partisan races that year. Having the date moved arbitrarily by an external group conducting a lottery would play havoc with the schedules of all other candidates for office in the state.

The only viable changes I can see are the Delaware plan or a national primary. They keep the date fixed and give the states the best chance to plan their own election schedule in the most cost-effective way. With a fixed date states can decide whether they want to couple primaries or keep them separate, and the decision could be consistently applied from year to year.

[Sibboleth]

National Primary, with Iowa and New Hampshire going before everyone else.

So you want to have your cake and eat it? 

[Senator Ben]

National Primary, with Iowa and New Hampshire going before everyone else.

So you want to have your cake and eat it? 

I would not mind that at all.

[cannonia]

Do away with the primaries and hold an IRV general election with candidates from all parties.

[Southern Patriot]

Do away with the primaries and hold an IRV general election with candidates from all parties.

Ideally the above, but if not then the below:

Other - Get the States entirely out of the business of running primaries and caucuses and let the political parties do it themselves (and pay for it themselves as well).

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

Do away with the primaries and hold an IRV general election with candidates from all parties.

Ideally the above, but if not then the below:

Other - Get the States entirely out of the business of running primaries and caucuses and let the political parties do it themselves (and pay for it themselves as well).

Agreed.  Personally the second one sounds better to me since I really believe primary elections are a joke ad waste of taxpayer money.

[Albus Dumbledore]

All of these plans are terrible so I'll post mine.

1 Have no state having it's primary as the same day as any other place. This is to stop super tuesday style bunching. Basically 50 primaries scattered over from January to June.
2 Have the caucuses held on a different day from the primaries.
3 Have the order be rotating and random.

[The Mikado]

All of these plans are terrible so I'll post mine.

1 Have no state having it's primary as the same day as any other place. This is to stop super tuesday style bunching. Basically 50 primaries scattered over from January to June.
2 Have the caucuses held on a different day from the primaries.
3 Have the order be rotating and random.

Would the DNC and RNC coordinate on this?  Because otherwise that would be two different sets of fifty rotating primaries.

The states would never do that, anyway.

By the way, are you named after General Sir Henry "Gravedigger" Havelock?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

[Albus Dumbledore]

1 I was thinking having both sets of primaries be on the same day.

2 Threaten to take away transportation funding and states will jump through hoops for you.

3 It's a reference to the discworld novels by Terr Prachett. The Patrician of Ankh-Morpok is named this.

[Bogart]

A national primary sometime in March or April and final round as it is. Have the parties pay for it (even if we keep the system the same as it is, the parties should pay for it).

[bergie72]

All of these plans are terrible so I'll post mine.

1 Have no state having it's primary as the same day as any other place. This is to stop super tuesday style bunching. Basically 50 primaries scattered over from January to June.
2 Have the caucuses held on a different day from the primaries.
3 Have the order be rotating and random.

Would the DNC and RNC coordinate on this?  Because otherwise that would be two different sets of fifty rotating primaries.

The states would never do that, anyway.

By the way, are you named after General Sir Henry "Gravedigger" Havelock?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

It would makes sense to have the RNC and DNC coordinate, otherwise each state will (more than likely) have two primaries, which would double the cost of the election.  Good idea, but VERY hard to implement.

And I think his name is courtesy of Terry Pratchett and his "Diskworld" series.  :-)

[Albus Dumbledore]

1 My plan presumed both parties held their primaries on the same day for the reasons you stated.

2 Congratulations. You win the prize which is a discount on a bridge located in San Francisco.

[muon2]

All of these plans are terrible so I'll post mine.

1 Have no state having it's primary as the same day as any other place. This is to stop super tuesday style bunching. Basically 50 primaries scattered over from January to June.
2 Have the caucuses held on a different day from the primaries.
3 Have the order be rotating and random.

Would the DNC and RNC coordinate on this?  Because otherwise that would be two different sets of fifty rotating primaries.

The states would never do that, anyway.

By the way, are you named after General Sir Henry "Gravedigger" Havelock?  Because that would be pretty awesome.

It would makes sense to have the RNC and DNC coordinate, otherwise each state will (more than likely) have two primaries, which would double the cost of the election.  Good idea, but VERY hard to implement.

It would also double the cost for states that current hold the presidential primary at the same time as the general primary. This assumes that the national date is unacceptable for the state's general primary.

[jimrtex]

It would also double the cost for states that current hold the presidential primary at the same time as the general primary. This assumes that the national date is unacceptable for the state's general primary.

How much of the cost of holding an election are for actual election day activities, and how much are for things like voting machines, registration, etc.

[muon2]

It would also double the cost for states that current hold the presidential primary at the same time as the general primary. This assumes that the national date is unacceptable for the state's general primary.

How much of the cost of holding an election are for actual election day activities, and how much are for things like voting machines, registration, etc.

There are also other costs behind the scenes, such as processing the voter lists to go to the polling places, and processing early and provisional votes. The cost in Kane County, IL for a special election was about $1 per resident.
 

The special 14th Congressional District election in March likely cost about $480,000, but it's difficult to separate that from February's special primary, Chief Deputy Clerk Jay Bennett said.

If I extend that to the state, a second primary election during presidential years in IL would cost between $13 M and $14 M.

[jimrtex]

It would also double the cost for states that current hold the presidential primary at the same time as the general primary. This assumes that the national date is unacceptable for the state's general primary.

How much of the cost of holding an election are for actual election day activities, and how much are for things like voting machines, registration, etc.

There are also other costs behind the scenes, such as processing the voter lists to go to the polling places, and processing early and provisional votes. The cost in Kane County, IL for a special election was about $1 per resident.
 

The special 14th Congressional District election in March likely cost about $480,000, but it's difficult to separate that from February's special primary, Chief Deputy Clerk Jay Bennett said.

If I extend that to the state, a second primary election during presidential years in IL would cost between $13 M and $14 M.

So maybe $5/voter.  How much is the annual cost of election administration (calculated over a 2-year period).

[Bo]

I voted national primary, but I would be OK with all of them except the Rotating Regional Primary System. I oppose keeping IA and NH first.

[feeblepizza]

A national primary sometime in March or April and final round as it is. Have the parties pay for it (even if we keep the system the same as it is, the parties should pay for it).

Agreed