I've long thought the best way to do the primaries would be in order of size, starting with the smallest, and in rapid succession.
Is the money issue really new? I would guess that the primary candidate with the most money on the date of the first primary generally wins the nomination. Anyone have data showing if this is true or not?
Screw size, I want to know who can take the kind of states that actually decide the big game. Forget New Hampshire and Cali, we need people who can take PA, CO, and OH.
Does having California vote earlier turn into an advantage for any of the candidates (money, etc.)?
The primary system bothers me, because it seems that the nominees are settled before 75% of the primaries have run, simply because half of the candidates have run out of cash.
Why, aside from the logistics, couldn't we have everyone have primaries on the same day? Is there something blindingly obvious I'm missing?
I think California hurts Hillary. I read somewhere that the LA money was going to Obama, and I'd bet that the N. Cal money goes mostly to Obama as well. I really don't see California voting for HRC.
Ugh. I'm a Californian, and this sucks. gswift nails it above.
The primary system is fucked. Beyond the fact that the earlier kingmaking primaries tend to be overwhelmingly white and unrepresentative of the actual party, they're also spaced ludicrously close together. Even with the addition of the Nevada caucuses, you have New Hampshire coming on a week later. That's not enough time for anyone to sort things out from the Iowa results. In 2004, Edwards finished just a couple points under Kerry in Iowa and nobody noticed because the only stories coming out of Iowa for a week were the Kerry Comeback and the Dean Scream. There was no time in an obsessive news cycle for a breakout candidate to actually break out in that compressed schedule.
Now you're telling me that fucking California is coming up after New Hampshire?! Jesus F. Christ. Let's just call the whole thing off after Iowa and be done with it.
I'm actually liking the idea that big swing states should lead. You could probably work out a formula based on a combination of how many electoral votes a state have and how close its popular vote was in the last election that'd actually produce an electable candidate.
Why, aside from the logistics, couldn't we have everyone have primaries on the same day? Is there something blindingly obvious I'm missing?
Because New Hampshire and Iowa are reluctant to give up the enormous amounts of power this system gives them, and everyone else obliges them for some reason.
Why, aside from the logistics, couldn't we have everyone have primaries on the same day?
Because Iowa and New Hampshire get pissy anytime someone suggests something like that. But there's no real reason--most of the primaries are already held on the same day anyway, having them all on one day wouldn't be particularly difficult. It would keep an upset victory in an early primary from changing the landscape, though.
McCain, Giuliani, and Romney can't get nominated. and HRC, Obama and Brownback can't get elected. Edwards has no money, and Clark can't campaign. Richardson has skeletons.
I swear, if after 8 years of Bush, if we get a Ozark President named Huckabee I will immolate myself.
President Huckabee. Those words could not pass these lips.
Teo: Why?
I have not thought about the primary system much, but it definitely seems like it sucks. Why not have every state primary vote on the same day? It would certainly end the snow ball effect caused by the media that plagues the current system. Heck, (obviously, it will never happen but,) maybe it is also worth considering indirect nomination of candidates, like in France. According to the 'pedia, "In order to be admitted as an official candidate, potential candidates must receive signed support from more than 500 elected officials, mostly mayors. There are approximately 45 000 elected officials that are on the list of such officials, including approximately 36 000 mayors."
Why is everyone talking about Huckabee like he's a realistic option? He couldn't even hold on to his governorship.
My why was a question about your first comment.
Why, aside from the logistics, couldn't we have everyone have primaries on the same day?
A national primary would make it entirely about money and name recognition, though, wouldn't it? Don't we want a system where the long-shot good candidate has at least half a chance to beat out the inevitability of the Hillary F. McKerrys?
12: The main advantages I see in my proposed system are that every state has the potential to make a difference and winning a couple early primaries wouldn't guarantee success overall (no big states early means no one sews up the nomination before other states have a chance to vote).
I think McCain is going to be the nominee, and whoever's the Dem wins. Woo hoo!
13: Because he lost all that weight. We like skinny people, silly. Though, he should take his clothes off so we can get a real look at him.
17 presumes that Americans will be smart enough to vote against McCain.
That said, I recognize that putting the states that are general election toss-ups earlier in the primary might be a useful strategy.
Also, caucuses: what the fuck? Caucuses are fucking stupid, people. So, for that matter, is presidential democracy. You're telling me it takes a two-thirds vote from the least democratic body in the U.S. Congress to remove a sitting president, and even then it can only be for criminal activity, and not for general fucking incompetence? Your system is goddamn broken, and I am returning it for another, please.
15: I can see that. But when was the last time a well-known front runner was defeated by an underdog? Early presumptive favorites crash-and-burn all the time, but they always crash-and-burn to another well-known guy. And my sense of it, at least, is that quite a lot of candidates bow out of the later primaries because they're unlikely to win because they're out of money.
The richest candidates would still have those advantages, but they wouldn't win by attrition.
20: Huh, it appears he was indeed term-limited. I could have sworn he ran for re-election and lost.
It's understandable that any state would like to get into the kingmaking business, but California has got to be one of the worst for this. Too big for retail, to 'far out' for middle america. (I'd guess that a candidate's popularity in California might well be a minus in Ohio. Depending on a million other factors). Winners and losers will end the race broke. And go into the general still broke.
Those who complain about either NH or Iowa, especially their being 'too white' need to explain how this hurts the mission: nominating candidates who can win the general. I'm not sure anyone could have done better than Kerry in 04; no process would've come up with different results in '00 or 96; and I don't think we'd have done better in '92. The race in '84 wasn't open for anything but a Mondale and not-Mondale, which was the race we got. The only one that seems to me, in 30 years, where there could have been any difference at all in '88. I don't think we'd have won the general in any event, and I don't see why anyone would argue that some better candidate would've emerged if Iowa and NH weren't the beginning of the process.
Our central problem in the general is not dearth of support from people of color.
IA and NH are toss-ups. Or close enough.
Those who complain about either NH or Iowa
They've had their turns. Now it's time to play nice with the other states.
Nobody should be asked to play nice with California. Oregon, maybe. I'd be OK with NM.
26: Maybe the more relevant objection to Iowa and New Hampshire, then, is: who the fuck cares about Iowa and New Hampshire? I mean, yes, Iowa is a purple state that tends to swing back and forth from election to election, but it's not exactly Ohio, either - and the ability to win over Democratic primary voters in Iowa says precious little about one's ability to win Iowa itself in a general election.
Now, the argument for including more ethnically diverse states is this: yes, minorities are going to generally vote for Democrats, but they don't come out for every candidate in the same numbers. If black voters are more enthusiastic for Edwards or Obama than they are for, say, Clinton or Biden, that's a relevant piece of information to consider for the general. Is that criterion worth staking the entire nominating process on? Probably not, which is why primaries should not only be more diverse, but spaced father apart, so no one primary gets to be a kingmaker. There was a time when primaries were so far apart, and the primary process itself took so long, that a candidate could enter the race in the middle of the primary process, after Iowa and New Hampshire, and still stand a decent chance of taking the nomination. The current process is so front-loaded it might as well be taking place in an entirely different system.
I was in New Hampshire for 2 presidential primaries, and that pretty much sold me on the benefit of starting off the season in a small state (doesn't have to be NH). Because it's first, the candidates care about winning it to try and get the momentum. Because it's small, the voters actually get a lot of real contact. Seriously, anyone in NH who cares to can meet, and I don't mean just shake hands, with a presidential candidate. I think that kind of unfiltered, unmediated interaction has real value. Otherwise, all any of us will ever get is the mediated version of the candidate. There can be real wisdom in our psychological reaction to unmediated interpersonal contact. Throw away early primaries in small states, and the opportunity to benefit from that wisdom is gone.
Also, although the representativeness argument always appealed to me intuitively, it's hard for me to actually imagine that if all the white voters in NH were replaced with brown ones that we'd really end up with different candidates. The democratic primary voters in NH are, on average, pretty educated and pretty involved, and no more racist than other white liberals. What is the extra benefit of ethnic diversity w/respect to the end result?
26: I'm not sure anyone could have done better than Kerry in 04
He lost to an incompetent sociopathic drunk. I'm not sure anyone could have done worse.
(Kerry would have made a decent president, but in hindsight he was a lousy candidate.)
Why do we have primaries at all? Honest question.
They're a marginal improvement on the previous "smoke-filled room" system.
Factionalism.
That is to say, we have political parties, the parties want to throw their weight behind a single candidate, and a primary system is the most democratic way they could think of to pick a candidate to support.
Gotta be quick to succeed in this business.
The democratic primary voters in NH are, on average, pretty educated and pretty involved
Of COURSE they are. They've gotten to sit down with every power broker in the national Democratic party for as long as they've lived in NH. Every Presidential wanna-be has kissed their individual heinies, praising their judgment and local diners.
Maybe we can try improving voter turnout in some other state next.
I like LB's proposal in 8. What about a multi-week contest based on the most competitive districts across multiple states?
Gotta be quick to succeed in this business.
Actually, you've got to be quick to be succeeded.
What Matt said in 35, and then as a Progressive reaction to the machine politics Teo mentions in 34. There's a reason ballot restriction tend to be much tighter in the East (famously so in New York) and loosey-goosey in the West.
He lost to an incompetent sociopathic drunk.
In 2004, southerners (regardless of where they live) would've voted Bush over Robert E Lee, had the latter run as a Democrat. Anything to avoid admitting that the dirty fucking hippies had been right about the war.
How many people are running for President, now?
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Vilsack, Brownback, and I'm forgetting some, right?
Also, quite possible, Clark.
43. Robert E. Lee became famous killing Republicans. I'm guessing he'd be part of the Independent party.
44 - Also: A Republican Congressman named Duncan Hunter. Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is in, as is Rudy Guiliani. McCain. And that's just the Republicans. It's a crowded race, although a lot of these people aren't going anywhere.
Biden's in, too. I think he declared twice, actually, and no one paid any attention either time.
Actually, Newt stated on "Meet the Press" that he will NOT decide whether to enter the race until very late, actually hoping someone else picks up on his ideas and makes a go with them instead.
Why not do the primaries like 'American Idol'?
Put all the candidates up on a platform on live TV and have them solve riddles, debate, answer questions, dunk a basketball, sing ... whatever ... and then have a national vote of some kind which eliminates the least popular candidates over the course of a daily series lasting about a week or so. If it was sexy enough it could get people pretty interested in politics.
Overall, it probably wouldn't be any more childish or less likely to engage people in the serious issues of our time than the current mess.
If I heard right, Richardson announced yesterday that while he wasn't then announcing his candidacy, he was announcing that he would announce his candidacy tomorrow.
On December 17, 2006, Gingrich noted: "Romney's had a good year. He's emerging as a serious player. Giuliani is wildly popular for national security reasons. John McCain has built a base for years of hard work. If one them seals it off by Labor Day, my announcing now wouldn't make any difference anyway. If none of the three having from now to Labor Day can seal it off, the first real vote is in 2008. And there's plenty of time in the age of television and e-mail between Labor Day and 2008."
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3905
Bill Richardson is too fat for TV.
Kerry could've gotten the West to vote for him... but he didn't. He was about 10 points of a Reaganesque (over Jimmy Carter's Evil Twin) performance, so his performance sucked.
And Hillary wants to sell me a 2000 sq. ft. 4 bedroom/3 bath home with an excellent location near good schools... for only one million down! Hillary Mondale, c'mon down, The Price is Wrong.
Ok, well enough with the particular candidate bullshit which means zip at this point.
If you want to do primaries right, you have a lottery system. The first lottery determines the type of primary: single-day primary, two 25-state single day primaries, (both of those either with our without leader state), all strung-out primary system, small regional primary system, large regional primary system, 25 states strung-out over three months, followed by a big bang 25-states single-day primary to finish, etc. etc. Start with a possible early leader primary in early December, and then everything goes bang bang from January through March. If a system is chosen in one presidential election year, it cannot be used next time, and since we're using the blowing ball thingy to decide, every system gets one ball added when it doesn't get used.
Second lottery determines the order of the states, in the context of whatever system is used in a given year. States that get picked to go early, don't get to go early next time, and the states that went late in a given round, get extra balls added until, eventually, they get to go first.
The lottery for the system would be conducted sometime between Jan. and June of the year preceding the election year. The selection of the states should not occur more than 120 days before the first primary.
That would neutralize candidates building big money leads before the first primary (which results in 'he/she's an idiot, but he/she's our idiot' nominations), and would force all candidates to scramble desperately to get into play. (Obviously, this wouldn't matter during a single-day primary. But that's ok, someone needs to be able to play in all 50 states anyways.) Rotating the states would prevent any region from dominating the primary process over multiple elections. Rotating the systems would prevent 'primary-specialist' candidates from getting to the general election, where they tend to get creamed.
Additional wrinkle: you could pick alternating systems for different parties, allowing a given state to concentrate on one party's set of candidates at a time. I dunno if that would violate equal protection though.
m, blah blah blah
44,36,47: I believe y'all forgot Kucinich. In a very crowded race, well you never can tell.
I am holding out for Harold Stassen. Swing state, very experienced campaigner, moderate Republican. Only ideologues would hold being dead against him.