Build a better presidential primary system

It would be premature (and naive) to anticipate that the two major political parties will reform the presidential primary process in a way that gives more states a meaningful say in choosing the nominees. But at least there are signs of a willingness to try. The new Democratic Change Commission, which includes Kansas Democratic Party chairman Larry Gates, will seek to revamp the calendar so that favored states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada hold their events in February 2012, followed by other states starting in March. It also wants to reduce the number of superdelegates, whose convention votes became such a contentious issue last year. Meanwhile, a new GOP committee is reviewing the timing of Republican nominating events. As it is, “I think we’re headed for essentially a national primary that happens on one or two days, and that’s not good,” David Norcross, a Republican National Committee member from New Jersey, told the Hill newspaper.

7 Comments

  1. American_Way
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    “states a meaningful say in choosing the nominees”

    What is the goal? Is it the fight for the media and political capital which is spent in the popular states? Is it a belief that states which launch a politician – will receive more in way of federal money for their support?

    What is a “meaningful say”?

    I think overall, the state primaries, provide the voter with more exposure to the candidates – and the beliefs and character of them. If they are mandated to all occur on a certain date(s), we will not have as much media exposure of the candidates – and hear less on what they stand for.

    Wouldn’t it actually be better to spread out the primaries over a longer period of time before an election?

    Sure, we get tired of the political commercials, but I think what drove the early bird states to move their state primary earlier – was to capture the lucrative campaign dollars, and not so much political influence.

    I could be wrong and maybe not considering something.

  2. Monkeyhawk
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Far be it from me to interfere with the Republic Party’s obviously failed strategy, but the winner-take-all system severely ill-serves them.

    They were stuck with McCain in February. Winner-take-all denied CONs the opportunity to see how McCain would actually campaign in the heat of battle. Even token efforts by the also-rans hurt them; Huckabee was considered petulant and sore loser, Mittens Romney was considered arrogant and Mormon. Paul-bearers kept at it and, instead of introducing some classical conservative issues into the GOP nominating process, made themselves look more foolish than they already were.

    Fewer regional primaries seem logical. Have an agricultural-based primary in the Midwest. A business-based primary in manufacturing states. An economy-based primary in NYC. An immigration-based primary along border states. Whatever….

  3. American_Way
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    I didn’t see the primaries as a republican or democrat problem.

    Michigan ring any bells for democrats?

  4. Regular
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Yeah, let’s start the primaries right now, we didn’t have enough electioneering.

  5. donndublin
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    The caucus system is too easily hijacked by unions and other special interests. We should have secret ballots. Kansas needs a primary election.

  6. yup
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    The only problem is; when the media moves to activism on the behalf of a specific candidate, it doesn’t matter how many primaries you have. More or less, make no difference. When the media doesn’t do their job and falls in love with and shamelessly promotes a candidate; the entire deal is compromised. The ignorant and ill-informed will take their direction from the media and not bother to figure out who would best represent their interests. One or fifty (in Obama’s case, 57) wouldn’t hold a candle to media influence.

  7. GMC70
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    It can be done, but it serves no one’s interests to do so. The media loves the extended horserace, it sells papers and/or airtime, and consequently toothpaste.

    The candidates milk the current system to raise as much money as they can; contributors get to buy their candidates of choice (or in actuality, all of them; institutions routinely hedge their bets by contributing to both sides).

    States are looking to make their state a “player” by rushing to the front, only to challenge the consequences of doing so – their votes being not counted (uh, well, until the Dems decided to ignore their own rules and count the votes anyway, but only when doing so was was wouldn’t change the outcome and thus was meaningless. Yup, there’s a decision driven by principle . . . .)

    Build a better primary system? Yup, it should be done . . . but it won’t. The players with their own interests in the system won’t let it happen.