3 Possible Primary Plans

[demwing]

This primary season has left me exhausted. You?

There has got to be a better way of working through this process. Here are three ideas for a new primary system. Read mine, add yours, argue, discuss.

#1
If what you want is for all the players to stay in the game till the end, set the schedule based on population, with the lowest pop going first. Everyone will stay in till California, the final primary, and then we roll right into the convention.

#2
However, if you want to ensure that only the strongest candidates progress, while also making sure that the smallest states don't get ignored, start with the biggest and the smallest on the same day, and then the 2nd biggest and 2nd smallest, etc, and base continuation on eliminations. If, at the end of 12 states, 24 states, and 36 states, you have not established enough 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishes, then you're eliminated. At the end, if more than one candidate remains, the one with the greatest number of popular votes wins.

#3
Or we can have a National Election Day, a federal holiday, where everyone votes on the same day. No exit polls released till the next day. This way, candidates determine in which states they feel they need to campaign the hardest. No momentum build up, no elongated primary. Everyone is done within a strict schedule. No more staying in just because you want to, no more ignoring the small states or the popular vote.

So, thoughts?

[Stagecoach]

1. Bottom line

They need to make it more simple, so the average person can understand what's going on.

#1, things need to be uniform among all 50 states. Outside of the number of delegates, there shouldn't be any of this stuff of where some are primaries, and others are caucuses; some are open primaries, some aren't; etc.

#2, I wouldn't mind having more uniform voting dates. But you can't have a 1-day national primary. The candidates just don't have enough money to campaign in all 50 states. It should be a progressional thing. That way if a candidate does respectfully well in the first set of primaries, they might be able to raise enough money to move on. For instance, look at the Republican side in '08. Would Mike Huckabee lasted as long as he did if there was a national primary day?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Screw raising money. That's half the problem in politics is that people buy their offices regardless

of whether or not they are the best person for the job.

[demwing]

6. Exactly

Money is part of the problem

[PATRICK]

3. Good points

It is an enormous mess that can cloud the reform process any number of ways. The immediate advantages of money and name recognition are very difficult in an open contest. Money simply has to be taken out of the equation nationwide, probably not happening until the general election is similarly reformed. Everyone gets the same public financing and ad time, bar the loopholes and "independent" advertisers somehow.

As for name recog, experience and local voice, maybe we should have a two pronged process of caucuses nominating candidates and then a winnowing process of a runoff election in some sectioning as suggested by the poster.

The debates should be modeled after real debates and adjudicated by quality, unbiased or even loyal smart Dems. The LWV and others could form a debate commission at least for our party. The quality would force the GOP to imitate or go completely glamor nuts trying to make their sham appear better on the surface. I have noticed even their media stooges provide them with crummy debates. The airways should have no control at all over the airing of debates, moderators, stage details or spin. Commentary directly after the debates, the intrusive "decision" by biased pundits and staged focus groups needs to be eliminated at least from the crucial post debate "reaction".

Polls needed to be limited, legitimized and therefore reduced in importance and opinion massaging.

Nothing will be perfect so the concentration should be on the big hurts to democracy, not the blemishes and shortcomings in any practice. the people should have access to their judgment on candidates with the least interference of unfair advantage by money, media, polling and simplistic name recog as possible. At the least this will restore the public faith in their own importance even if the obvious forces against them are still very much alive. You can have legitimate hope this is all the public needs, besides decent media information to begin with. Most of the deep alienation and anger comes from the monstrosities at loose in the entire system regardless of the persons of the candidates themselves.

[PATRICK]

4. Dupe

n/t

[InvisibleTouch]

5. I like #3, myself.

Let the candidates take 6 months or so to travel and campaign beforehand, and then get all the voting out of the way in one day. I know there's a fundraising issue that would be a problem under that scenario, but if all of them are under the same constraint, they will have to spend their money more carefully and wisely. It will probably never happen, but I think this would be the best option.