In response to today’s Iowa-bashing, a couple of readers ask what sort of primary order I would prefer.
It depends upon the primary priority, no pun intended. Is the process designed to ensure that the most electable candidate is nominated? Is it to be stable and predictable? Is it to require candidates to demonstrate that they can appeal to voters beyond one or two regions of the country?
For what it is worth, I think coronations are more often harmful to a party. I think the best primary system is one that permits as many Republicans as possible to make a meaningful impact on the nominee selection process by voting. (Under the current system, if you’re worried that your preferred choice will be eliminated by the time your state holds its presidential primary, you can still attempt to help your candidate by giving money, volunteering, touting him to any friends you have in early-primary states, following on Facebook and Twitter, etc. But it will all feel pretty moot when Primary Day comes and your guy quit weeks ago and only one or two candidates are still seriously contending for the nomination.)
It doesn’t take much to get a Republican outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina to start complaining that they feel shut out of their party’s most important decision in most cycles.
So I would suggest a process that begins with the least-populated states, which have the fewest delegates to the GOP convention, and works its way up to the largest and most delegate-rich states. In the nomination process, a state can present value to a candidate in one of three ways: 1) number of delegates (often tied to population size); 2) time in the primary calendar (a chance to make an early splash and create momentum for later contests); or 3) ease or cost-effectiveness for campaigning (small size and short travel distances, cheap television advertising rates, etc.). This system would attempt to balance out those values so that campaigning for the votes of those few Republicans in Vermont and Delaware makes as much sense as campaigning for the votes of Republicans in Texas and Georgia.
Under this system, the earliest states would still get enormous attention, but they would have the least consequence in terms of number of delegates; a candidate could stumble and still rebound on the next one, at least for a little while. Because of their small population (and, often, geographic size), the early process would still involve retail politicking with a lot of personal interaction with primary voters. Early state victories in relatively inexpensive places like Delaware and Montana might translate to influxes of funding and momentum, so the idea of an underdog rising to the top would be more plausible. But the steady week-by-week drumbeat of increasingly larger mid-sized states (Indiana, Colorado, Arkansas) would require a candidate to demonstrate that they’re more than just a flash in the pan.
The biggest states, California and Texas, might lament that they’re destined to go last. But under this system, one or both could very well end up with the “kingmaker” role, putting one of the leading final contenders over the top. They would be more than just “ATMs” that are visited by candidates for fundraisers but largely ignored in terms of actual candidate campaign stops.
I would try to cluster states together geographically, but I would avoid “Super Tuesday”–style mega-primary days, which require candidates to campaign in eight to twelve states at once. That kind of setup pretty much ensures that the candidate with the most funds will win, because he will be the only one who can afford to run ads in all of those states voting simultaneously.
According to Green Papers’ list of number of delegates per state (based on information obtained from the state party, presidential-primary dates established by currently effective state statute, and the state’s 2008 delegate selection process), under this system, the first ballots would be cast in . . . technically Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa. One can argue whether territories should go first, but at least winter in the Virgin Islands sounds more enjoyable than Iowa.
Ironically, the first state would be . . . New Hampshire. The order after that, in ascending order of number of delegates to the GOP convention:
Delaware
Vermont
District of Columbia
Rhode Island
Hawaii
New Mexico
Puerto Rico
Maine
South Carolina
Montana
Alaska
North Dakota
Iowa
Connecticut
Nevada
Oregon
South Dakota
Arizona
Wyoming
Michigan
West Virginia
Idaho
Nebraska
Colorado
Arkansas
Maryland
Kansas
Utah
Minnesota
Mississippi
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Washington
Kentucky
Indiana
Louisiana
Virginia
New Jersey
Alabama
Florida
Missouri
North Carolina
Tennessee
Ohio
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Georgia
New York
Texas
California
So, under RNC Chairman Jim, the 2016 Republican primary process (one hopefully lacking drama because we’re all so thrilled with the results of the GOP president elected in 2012) would look something like this:
February 9: New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine.
February 16: Delaware, District of Columbia.
February 23: Hawaii, Alaska.
March 1: South Carolina.
March 8: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming.
March 15: Iowa, Minnesota.
March 22: Connecticut, Rhode Island.
March 29: Nevada, Utah.
April 5: Oregon, Idaho, Washington.
April 12: Arizona, New Mexico.
April 19: Michigan, Indiana.
April 26: West Virginia, Kentucky.
May 3: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas.
May 10: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama.
May 17: Maryland, Virginia.
May 24: Massachusetts, New Jersey.
May 31: Wisconsin, Illinois.
June 7: Florida.
June 14: Missouri, Oklahoma.
June 21: North Carolina, Tennessee.
June 28: Ohio, Pennsylvania.
July 5: Georgia.
July 12: New York.
July 19: Texas.
July 26: California.
Everyone gets August off; the convention is held at the end of the summer, and the general election lasts a bit longer than two months.
Under this system, every state gets a week in the spotlight, shared with no more than three other states, and the states are reasonably contiguous and similar in demographics, economies, resonating issues, cultures, etc. No more holiday seasons ruined by an early January caucus. New Hampshire still gets to kick things off but shares its debut with two nearby states; South Carolina still plays a key role as first-in-the-South. Iowa slips down the list, but it’s still fairly early in the sixth week of competition (out of 25!) and this can be considered penance for their oversized influence since 1972.
I’m not sure about having Alaska and Hawaii so early, as geographic distances will always make either of them expensive states for cash-strapped candidates.
If you think this would have the primary running ridiculously late, I will remind you that right now, California, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota are slated to choose June 5; Montana June 14; Utah June 26 and Nebraska July 14.
As Chairman, I would encourage every state to have a closed primary and eliminate caucuses. Caucuses tend to have low turnout, violate the principle of the secret ballot, and effectively disenfranchise the sick, those who are immobilized, those who work nights and those who cannot get a sitter. I prefer closed primaries because if you want to have a say in who a party nominates, you should be a member of that party.
UPDATE: Somehow when making up this calendar I originally forgot Oklahoma.
Jim, I couldn't agree more. Full disclosure: I live in Maine and have long felt little reason to invest much interest, beyond the purpose of staying informed, in the presidential primaries. I applaud your common sense approach to fixing this broken system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a nice, well-thought out system. The one flaw, which unfortunately is a major one, is based on observations from John Ellis. He notes that media companies generally only have the budget to cover 1-2 candidates, rather than a large field. They have to decide where to concentrate their limited resources, and therefore the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are used by the media to winnow down the field for their purposes to two candidates.
Now, that may be less of an issue in the modern social media/internet age of media consumption, but I would think that candidates who are not really covered by the major media will really struggle, especially in the large media markets within the larger states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like it
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom 57 states to 49: What happened to Oklahoma?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, let's try it, guys! the current system leaves out far too many people. Ideally, I'd rather see the whole thing (i.e., actual voting) take no more than six months, including the general election in November...primaries in May-July, convention in August, election in November. But if the primaries must go Jan-July, then let's re-organize the mess with some better rationale and purpose, building suspense, momentum, and citizen participation right through to the end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat solution, certainly more rational than our current system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere is Oklahoma on your calendar? :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn excellent idea. It makes so much sense that the powers that be would never implement the idea. Just a minor quibble... NH, SC, AZ, MI & FL have been assessed a 50 percent penalty for awarding their delegates too early. The calendar should reflect their actual base delegates without penalties. Regardless, this would be a terrific calendar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I'd really like to see is a series of one-on-one contests in a round robin format. So, borrowing Jim's schedule, maybe that Feb. 9 date has a New Hampshire primary with Bachmann v. Santorum, Cain v. Romney (yeah, I know Cain's out, but he'd have been in the original eight) Gingrich v. Perry and Huntsman v. Paul. Vermont gets Cain v. Bachmann, Gingrich v. Santorum, Huntsman v. Romney, Perry v. Paul, etc. With eight candidates everyone eventually faces everyone else at least 7 times. The two top candidates then advance to a national primary, which could be determined in a variety of ways (W-L records, W-L records weighted by population, a vote by the RNC, the convention delegates, or some combination thereof). Candidates would qualify for the tournament by either gathering signatures, collecting $10 donations, etc.
I think that would be a much better system because it would test who can actually get 50% rather than the current system which relies so much on speculation on what will happen when the field narrows. It would also favor candidates who can unify a large portion of the party rather than those who can solidify support from specific segments like moderates, evangelicals, or libertarians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love this idea! Let's start a petition!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting, BUT, the calendar indicates that you don't get to a "red" state for the first month. I understand that's a trap of the delegate determination process (delegates based on GOP vote total), but realize that you're starting with a general campaign approach in the smallest initial markets. Only in SC will an all-out GOP only, red-meat-to-the-base, fight start.
At least in Iowa we get the "social conservative" vote, and in NH (though it's getting diluted) we get the "economic conservative" vote.
I don't know what we get by starting with the "blue" states. How would the democrats campaign if they had to start in Utah or Alaska or Wyoming?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think 25 weeks is way too long. You would be sapping the doner base for too long to keep everyone going and eventually people are going to stop giving for the main contest.
I would also like to see some sort of 1st choice, 2nd choice voting so that people don't just vote for the person they think is the 2nd best choice to make it a vote against someone else. For example, I would vote for Romney over either Newt or Ron Paul, but would really rather vote for Santorum if he had a snow balls chance of winning. In the current system I make a lesser of two evils decision, which leads to McCain, Romney, Dole, etc. and takes the number three or four choice and relegates them to the Cadilac, Steak Knives, your fired issue that was used in the Morning Jolt.
Round robin is an idea for sports, but the logistics, fairness (why does New Hampshire get to decide Santorum versus Romney? or why does Texas have Perry versus Gingrich?) and overall unlikelihood that anyone will understand the rules make it unworkable. You think people have issues with the Electoral College, wait until we try to explain round robin points system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou forgot to account for the penalties. New Hampshire would have 24 delegates if it were not being penalized - about the same as Alaska. The Green Papers assumes that the penalties will be enforced, so NH is listed with only 12 delegates as opposed to the 24 they are entitled to under the formula used.
Same problem with Florida - which would actually be the 3rd largest delegate count at 99 (behind only Texas and California). Michigan, SC, and Arizona are also taking hits for early primaries.
Presumably, in your system, no state would be absorbing a 50% penalty so you would need to use the formulaic numbers and not the reduced numbers to order them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, what about Larry Sabato's idea of rotating regional primaries?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we assume the results are proportional?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJay Cost thinks the solution is to abandon the primary system and revert to the old nominating system. He makes a strong argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Delaware is actually an expensive state to campaign in, because most of the population receives tv from Philadelphia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for stealing my idea, Jim. Although mine was inverse order by population, it's still a sort of plagarism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have a better idea.
Swing States first. Defined as, margin of victory from the previous Presidential election, smallest margin first, and then work your way out. Doesn't matter which party won, go only by how close the race was. This would put the swing states that you need to win up front and states that will go to one party or the other by a huge margin last. It'd give us the best chance to nominate someone that can win in the states he/she needs to win. The order would vary cycle to cycle base on a simple and easy to understand criteria.
Also: Registered voters for our party only get to vote in primaries. Or, at most, registered R's and independents only, but registered members of other parties don't get to vote. No point letting D's determine who our candidate will be.
And, Winner takes all in every primary. The D's last time around showed how awful a primary season could be when you do proportional representation (and certainly lets not follow their undemocratic lead on 'superdelegates').
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a little too regionally focused on the northeast at the beginning. I think it would be better to alternate the first states every 4 years so we don't have issues like we do now with candidates focused on ethanol or other regional issues so much. Alaska and Hawaii are problematic, they should be moved to the back and everyone else moved up a week.
One idea I had is instead of starting with states, find a few congressional districts in places like Ohio, Florida, Virginia or other biggish swing states and have a few primaries there to start and then move on to the state wide primaries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse