SGR2's Primary Reform idea, tell me what you think?

[ShaneGR]

Ok, first off, scrap the current system. In general, I think it sucks. I do agree that a nominee needs to be selected early to allow that candidate to get his organization in place and fundraising going for the General Election.

Here's my idea.

Split the country into five regions:

Northeast
Southeast
Midwest
West
Northwest

Each region has 10 states.

Now, from those five regions, every 4 years one state from each region gets selected. It would rotate every four years to new states.

So, the first time would look something like this:
Northeast: New York
Midwest: Ohio
Southeast: Georgia
West: New Mexico
Northwest: Oregon

The primaries would start in mid-January with one state at a time, every week for five weeks.

For example, New York would have their primary. The next week would be New Mexico, followed by Oregon then Georgia and then Ohio. Five weeks, five contests. (The regional order would also change every four years, and would be based on a lottery held to determine the next 20 or so years)

Then on March 2nd, the sixth week, we have a SUPER-SUPER TUESDAY. All of the remaining 45 states vote to select the nominee.

Keep in mind that four years after that the regional representatives would change, and could look like this:

Northeast: Massacheussetts
Midwest: Missouri
Southeast: Florida
West: California
Northwest: Washington


This plan provides every state to eventually decide a presidential election every fifty years. It also forces the candidates to campaign in areas they never have before, and makes the process much more representative. The rotation is key I think.


What do you think?

[rucky]

1. Make it IRV & I'm in

or something similar to instant runoff voting

[ShaneGR]

2. Well, if no candidate got the necessary delegates

Then it would be brokered. But it's highly unlikely because the Big Mo would still be in place for the candidate who did the best in the first five states, most likely carrying him to victory on SUPER-SUPER Tuesday, but what's good about this is that the ability to decide who gets that Big Mo rotates. No more Iowa and New Hampshire (Great states but) getting to decide everything every time.

[4morewars]

3. Great idea,will never happen

"we've always done it this way", "that's not how we do it","you can't do it that way", "that's crazy talk", etc etc

[Tim_in_HK]

4. I don't think states will relish the idea of having a say

in the nominee once every 10 years.

I think caucuses should be abolished, and all should be ballot primaries.

I also think that the ballot should have people vote for their top 2 (or even 3) choices, and results would be weighted by this. If you only liked one candidate (e.g., Clark), you could vote Clark for all two (or three) spots.

I think this would be interesting. Side note: this is how it's done in some other countries (notably Australia), and I think brings out a more accurate picture of who people want.

First stop, abolish the caucuses. I haven't seen any good explanation for why they are good. But open to idea.

Regarding the regionalism of the primaries, I'm not so sure what to be done there.

[theboss]

5. My only problem is the uncertainty

The problem with the current system is that it gives far far too much responsibility to Iowa, NH, and South Carolina.

But in your system, you could end up with four or five reasonably strong candidates left by the Super Tuesday. I could see a lot more brokered conventions under this scenario, and brokered conventions are the absolute least Democratic way to select a nominee.

I think there should be a policy of rewarding the most Democratic states. In other words, the state that gave the Democratic candidate the highest percentage in the prior election votes first on a designated day. Why should NH and SC have such a strong say when they often go for Republicans?

But I like the idea of grouping the states. I say 5 a week for 7 weeks, and 15 on the last Tuesday. Under my system, that last week would be the least "Democratic" states but they would still have an important role as they could make or break a candidate.

And I think that started with the most liberal states and working towards the most Republican would naturally help the Candidate.

The strategy is always turn left in the Primary, and run to the center in the general. This would allow the candidates to start out with the most left-wing voters and then try to appeal to the more conservative.

[Gadave]

6. The problem with our promary systems is

The fact one state votes in the first round of primary voting. The first state has 6 months of campaigning for a population which is extremely small. The first primary date is the one time when candidates can build support slowly over time.

For that reason, the first round should have several states in all regions of the country. I would say 4 or 8 (1 or 2 per region). This gives each candidate a chance to fight for a state of their chosing in which they feel they can get traction. Each candidate has 6 months at least to campaign for those primaries, so money is less important.

Any time you let one state start first your are biasing the system. Why do it? Let representatives from all regions has a voice.

Then, take a month off, let the spin and "momentum" subside and let issues recapture the process. Then have another 8 states. After those two are done, then it is clear who is viable and who is not. What you do with the remaining states doesn't matter at that point, but a regular stream of 8 every 2 weeks might work (with a couple extra thrown in here and there).

A brokered convention is not undemocratic, as long as you restrict the winner to the candidates who actually finish in the top 2. Consider round 2 the runoff between the top two finishers (if no one gets a majority).

This does some very good things. Mainly, makes the convention valuable again, and not some glorified political rally the networks don't want to cover anymore.

To facilitate this some rules changes need to be enacted.

Super delegates have got to go. Over 800 out of a total of a little more than 4000 is obscene. Further, the system currently used now with all candidates getting a proportional part of the state delegates needs to change. Also, the delegate alotment needs to change too. Here is my method.

All 50 states get 5 delegates just for being a state
For each time a state voted Dem in the presidential election in the last 3 presidential elections, that state would get 5 more delegates.
For each congressional district the state gets two delegates.
For each congressional district with a Dem Rep, that state gets an additional two delegates.

Estimated number of delegates and the max number
250 - 250
375 - 750
870 - 870
435 - 870
Totals (1930 - 2740)

In addition for places like Wash DC, Guam, PR, etc. you would have additional delegates.

Then, when each state votes, the pluralty winner of the state gets the state related delegates (5 - 20). The winner in each congressional district gets those delegates (2 - 4 each).

The numbers need some work, depending on if you want more or less value for how the state votes in the Presidential election.

I like a system like this because it gives some value to winning the state, while it also gives the non front runner a chance to win parts of the states.

Anyway, I know my system has some flaws as well, but I think it works better than what we have now.

[no name no slogan]

7. This has been proposed before (regional primaries)

...and has been consistently shot down by the national committees of both major parties. They have a vested interest in the current system, and will do anything to keep it that way, unfortunately.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. It doesn't normally happen that IA and NH

end up providing a surprise win and the momentum for one candidate like this one has. It's not really true that IA and NH "decided" the nominee this time, that's just an illusion.

There were TWO major factors involved in creating this "illusion". Not only did Kerry's numbers improve the week before the Iowa caucus and allow him to pull an upset, but Dean's supposed vast support did not materialize, and his campaign has imploded.

The two forces working in opposite directions have created the "illusion" that the early states were the cause of this, when really it was just chance in THIS election that these things happened together.

That's how I see it anyway. Other primaries have not been like this.