A Centrist’s Platform 2008 — Primary Reform

(This is one of a weekly series of posts entitled “A Centrist’s Platform”. The complete collection of Centrist’s Platform posts is available on a single page, or via a special RSS feed.)

With early voting for the primaries already underway in several states, the Iowa caucuses just a few days away, and the New Hampshire primary coming in just over a week…please allow me to echo what many folks are thinking — Presidential primary scheduling has become nuts.

For years, we’ve seen primary season tend to drift earlier, as more states jockey to attract candidates’ early attention, dollars from visiting delegations and media covering the candidates, influence both from early press — and a hope that the parties’ candidates won’t have been selected before primary day.

This cycle, it seems that we may have achieved the point where Congress has been seemingly completely paralyzed in part due to the polarization arising from premature Presidential primaries.

I suspect I’m not alone in having such thoughts; there may actually be sufficient frustration on both sides of the aisle that bipartisan support could be brought to bear on coming up with a more sensible primary calendar.

The challenges in setting up a more sensible primary calendar are many.  They include:

• The fact that the individual states officially control the scheduling (rather than either the parties or the feds);
• A desire among some that the primaries be scheduled in a manner that permits even lesser-known or lesser-funded candidates to attract media attention (and therefore the attention of potential donors) before the the nominee is decided;
• A desire among most that a state’s primary not be made moot by a nominee having been decided prior to their primary; and
• What happens to Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s perceived entitlement to having the front of the line?

The first and the last points are ones that I’m not going to touch.  The involvement of state legislature means that fixing the perceived problem will be worse than herding cats, and I’m not fool enough to believe that anyone will realistically alter Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s traditional role as “first in the nation”.

However, the other two points could be handled simply, by dividing the county into six approximately equal-sized tranches of states (plus Iowa and New Hampshire).  For example:

• Iowa and New Hampshire (which I assume will be first in any reform scenario)
• California & the Southwest (AZ, CA, HI, NM, UT, and Pacific territories sending delegates)
• Texas & the Plains (AR, CO, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, SD, TX, WY)
• New York & the Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT…plus PR, VI, and expats if granted delegates)
• Florida & the Southeast (AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC)
• Illinois & the Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
• The Mid Atlantic and the Northwest (AK, DE, DC, ID, KY, MD, OR, PA, TN, VA, WA, and WV)
  (Yes, that’s an odd non-contiguous grouping.  However, trying to divide the country up into six equal-sized, contiguous, logical regions isn’t easy.  I was able to do five…and these are the leftovers.)

I’d then be inclined to designate five waves of primaries:

• Iowa & New Hampshire — January
• First tranche of states — February
• Second tranche of states — March
• Third tranche of states — April
• Fourth, fifth, and sixth tranches of states — May

The initial order would be assigned randomly, and then rotate through a February - May - March - May - April - May cycle.

The advantages of such a system would include:

• For the first half of primary season, candidates would focus on relatively concentrated regions, making it easier to focus advertising and reduce travel schedules…concerns on the mind of less-well-funded candidates.
• Roughly half the delegates would still be up for grabs in the May primaries, keeping those states’ votes at least theoretically relevant.
• No state would be lost in the pack of states at the end of the primary cycle in two consecutive elections.  While a given state would be at the head of the line only once every 24 years, it’s still easy to believe that the media spot light will focus in on the relevant tranche of states for each of the February, March, and April primary groups…bringing ad dollars and prestige with that attention.

The major criticisms I could see being made include:

• This system does nothing about the perceived unfairness of having Iowa and New Hampshire always be first.  While it’s true that the states’ demographics are hardly representative of the country as a whole, and they may not be good tests of electability against a candidate of the opposing party, both states do have decades’ of experience of test-driving candidates.  Besides, given how political pressures work, I think it’s unrealistic to believe that Iowa or New Hampshire could be budged from their current place in line.
• While many folks seem to come to the same idea as I, that rotating states among 3 or 4 waves of primaries, some would prefer more of a pot-luck approach of assigning states to the waves, to ensure geographic and demographic diversity in each wave, to ensure appropriate “testing” of candidates before the primary has been won.   While I can see that point, I think the diversity concern is protected by still keeping approximately half the delegates up-for-grabs until the final round of primaries.  And, by possibly sacrificing some early diversity, you gain a geographic concentration of states that will make financing slightly less of an issue for candidates in the early primaries.

In a few weeks, we’ll start to see some better-informed assessment as to the possible impact of the front-loading of the primary calendar this election cycle. Hopefully there will be continued interest in fixing the apparent problem, and that something can be done in a reasonably intelligent manner.