New Ideas for Presidential Primaries

New Ideas for Presidential Primaries
We're now into our 13th week of the Presidential Primary schedule with a full eight weeks more to go before Montana, South Dakota, and New Mexico (Republican) voters go to the polls on June 3rd. That is, unless Michigan and Florida decide to schedule new primaries or caucuses later in June.
Many people thought this primary season would end early when twenty states (and American Samoa) scheduled primaries or caucuses for February 5. I remember reading articles in the Times Picayune wondering if the Louisiana Primary scheduled for February 9 would be meaningful. It turns out, at least for the Democratic candidates, that these states are poised to play a pivotal role this year.
The LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS is a non-partisan organization and I won't be discussing any ideas regarding party politics in this article. It's up to the parties how they conduct their elections, but there are many organizations that have proffered some alternative primary election scheduling choices. According to the Federal Election Commission, there are twenty-seven election dates for primaries and caucuses this year and that's not counting the two-week long caucus Hawaii Republicans scheduled!
So, what are some of these new ideas for a revamped primary system?
National Primary
This idea has been discussed many times over the years. We have a National Election Day, why not have one day when people all over the country go to the polls and vote in a Primary election? Voters wouldn't be influenced by the results in earlier primaries or caucuses and we'd just get the whole thing finished with on one day! It could even be declared a national holiday and we'd just settle this thing right NOW.
While I've presented this plan tongue-in-cheek, U.S. Representative Richard Hobson from Alabama first introduced this bill in Congress in 1911; Woodrow Wilson supported a National Primary Day; and similar bills have been introduced 125 times!
The arguments for a National Primary include more choices for President for all voters, and all votes are relevant. The argument against a National Primary is the vast sum of money candidates would have to raise up front before a single vote was cast. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are advocating for this system, but some have said that if nothing is done and the primaries continue to be scheduled on the earliest possible date, that we could have a de-facto National Primary.
The Delaware Plan
Under this plan, the states and territories would be divided into four groups based on population. The smallest states and territories would vote on one day in March; the next smallest states would vote in April; and this process continues in May and June. While the largest states would always vote in the last group, they control more than 50% of the delegates.
This plan was originally proposed by the Republican National Committee in the spring of 2000, but it was voted down. Iowa objected to the plan since they would no longer be in the first group and Republicans worried that if they approved this plan without agreement from the Democratic Party, they could be at a disadvantage due to the schedule since they wouldn't know who their nominee was until June.
The Democratic Party rejected this plan because of a conservative bias. Even though the first round of voting contained an even number of red and blue states, the second round had 2 blue states and 10 red states and the third round had 4 blue states to 9 red states.
Rotating Regional Primary System
The National Association of Secretaries of State (http://www.nass.org) is promoting a plan that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to retain their status as first caucus and primary states. The remaining 48 states and U.S. territories would be divided into four geographical regions: East, South, Midwest, and West. A lottery would determine the order the first year and then it would rotate so that each region went first every sixteen years.
Regional primaries or caucuses would begin on the first Tuesday or shortly after in March with a new region each month through June. The election dates would not necessarily have to be held on the same day of the month.
Republican and Democratic Party leaders have been lukewarm to this idea. The Republicans selected the Delaware Plan in 2000 instead of this plan and Democrats ranked it ninth out of ten (with ten being the status quo).
Proponents of this plan state that it creates a more orderly process. It will allow candidates to focus their time, money, and energy on a particular region instead of trying to compete in states on opposite sides of the country at the same time. In addition, the Secretaries of State noted that by moving the primaries from the front-loaded February dates to March and later, that they'd be better able to manage staffing, train election workers, and get ballots printed since they'd no longer be preparing for the elections during the holidays. They also stated that the weather would be less of a factor.
Critics of this plan say that it increases the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire and due to the large sizes of the regions, only well-funded candidates would be able to compete in the regional primaries.
Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies has proposed a lottery system that would use the same geographical regions, but the order would be determined about six months prior to the first primary so candidates couldn't "camp out".
Graduated Random Presidential Primary System
(aka The California Plan or The American Plan) (http://www.fairvote.org)
Under this plan, the country's election schedule would be divided into ten two-week periods. The states would be chosen randomly, but it would be based on the number of congressional seats each state has (or territory is provided). Any combination of states could be randomly selected provided the total number of seats equals the total set for that date. Originally, under The American Plan, the first election date was comprised of states or a state whose congressional delegation totaled 8; second round was 16; and would grow by 8 each time until states totaling 80 congressional seats were voting during the 10th election cycle.
California, with 53 congressional seats, would not be eligible to vote until at least the 7th round (7 x 8 = 56). In order to provide a way for California to have an opportunity to participate in an earlier round of primaries, The California Plan utilizes the following order: 8, 16, 24, 56, 32, 64, 40, 72, 48, & 80. This change not only allows a greater opportunity for California to vote early, but also Texas, Florida, and New York.
Opponents of this plan state that it will lead to high travel costs, ten is too many election dates, and it abandons the idea of increasing size in order to accommodate California.
The Status Quo?
I couldn't find much support for the status quo, but there doesn't appear to be any consensus plan that has the support of the Democratic and Republican Parties, the Secretaries of State, academics, non-profits, and individuals. Without consensus, we'll probably be stuck with the status quo in 2012. Let me know what plan you support. Send me an email at sandraslifer@gmail.com.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: June 20, 2008 09:38 PDT.