A suggestion for scheduling the primaries

[BrainGlutton]

Many oppose the idea of having all 50 state primaries/caucuses the same day because:

1. That would necessarily favor the candidates with the most money to spend early in the race and

2. Small, less-populous states would get ignored.

Yet our primary season is way too long and complicated.

How about this: Have five, only five, primary/caucus dates, spaced two weeks apart, nice and neat. Rank-order the states in reverse order of population. The ten least populous states get to have theirs first, the ten biggest states last. It allows the small states to get all the attention early on; campaigning in the biggest ones costs the most, so it’s economically efficient to save them until all but the most serious candidates have dropped out; and a final “Super Tuesday” with more delegates at stake than all the previous primaries combined adds a pleasing dramatic buildup.

(Just a thought experiment – let’s leave aside the difficulty of getting all state legislatures to agree on this.)

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s an editorial endorsing substantially the same idea.

With Super Duper Tuesday looming, nearly half of the delegates needed for the nomination will be decided on a single day. Having a single primary day with so many states give great advantage to those candidates with the most campaign cash and name recognition to compete in so many states simultaneously.

It creates a virtual wealth primary in which some candidates will be quickly eliminated, even though half the states will have not yet weighed in. Certainly this was a big factor in John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and other candidates dropping out recently. Hardly super duper, this fiasco should be called Super Stupid Tuesday.

A national primary system with four separate primary days, where the 13 smallest states go first followed by the medium states and finally the largest states, makes a lot more sense and would ensure that all states and all voters have a say in the nomination process.

[UltraVires]

Your idea is slightly better than a one day national primary, but it still suffers from the same problem that I mentioned in the other thread: Brokered conventions.

You would have 4 or 5 candidates still in the race and the end result would be that the party bosses pick the nominees…

[threeorange]

How about this idea? Every Tuesday, for ten weeks, have five state primaries. Have the order chosen by by a random drawing, and have new drawing every four years. The drawing, of course, would have to take place well in advance of the actual voting, so that the state election agencies could prepare.

What might be the drawbacks to this system?

[BrainGlutton]

@threeorange

How about this idea? Every Tuesday, for ten weeks, have five state primaries. Have the order chosen by by a random drawing, and have new drawing every four years. The drawing, of course, would have to take place well in advance of the actual voting, so that the state election agencies could prepare.

What might be the drawbacks to this system?

Well, the other idea is more orderly and predictable, and guarantees the smallest states the early attention they clearly want. They get to be the forerunners and have some influence on the media’s judgment of who’s a “serious” candidate and who isn’t, but the real decision is effectively saved to the end – so voters in every state have a real reason to participate.

[BrainGlutton]

@jtgain

Your idea is slightly better than a one day national primary, but it still suffers from the same problem that I mentioned in the other thread: Brokered conventions.

You would have 4 or 5 candidates still in the race and the end result would be that the party bosses pick the nominees…

A brokered convention does not necessarily leave the decision to the “party bosses,” and, in any case, will occur whenever the primaries do not produce a clear winner – which might happen in any primary cycle, but has nothing to do with how the primaries are scheduled.

[BrainGlutton]

One exception to the above proposal: The Louisiana primary should always be on Mardi Gras. Politics is an occasion of sin, and as such should be overindulged in on Fat Tuesday, repented of on Ash Wednesday, and given up for Lent.

[BrainGlutton]

Oh, and one more change: The ten-week primary season runs through April, May and June. It shortens the campaiging cycle, but the candidates still have a good six months to get ready for the general election, and nobody south of Alaska has to go politicking in the snow.

Please!

[Quartz]

@BrainGlutton

One exception to the above proposal: The Louisiana primary should always be on Mardi Gras. Politics is an occasion of sin, and as such should be overindulged in on Fat Tuesday, repented of on Ash Wednesday, and given up for Lent.

Deliciously snide!

[mswas]

Did anyone besides Mike Gravel politic in Alaska?

[garygnu]

@BrainGlutton

Well, the other idea is more orderly and predictable, and guarantees the smallest states the early attention they clearly want. They get to be the forerunners and have some influence on the media’s judgment of who’s a “serious” candidate and who isn’t, but the real decision is effectively saved to the end – so voters in every state have a real reason to participate.

I live in the biggest state of all and I want attention, too.
I like the idea of orderly scheduled primaries. I’m even OK with small states getting the very first round, but after that the weekly collection of same-day states should be diverse in both population and geographical location.