Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: On the 7 percent “solution” override
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - DHS responds, Madigan’s spokesperson calls it “an absolute lie” (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
* Paul Waldman has a devastating takedown of Iowa and New Hampshire in his latest piece…
[The political pundits assure us] that the wise and deliberative citizens of the early states take their responsibilities so seriously. But do they really? And if they don’t, what does that say about the way we’re choosing the next leader of the free world?
* Iowa’s caucus turnout is pathetic…
If this is a typical election, somewhere between 6 and 10 percent of voting-eligible Iowans will bother to show up to a caucus. Yes, you read that right. Those vaunted Iowa voters are so concerned about the issues, so involved in the political process, so serious about their solemn deliberative responsibilities as guardians of the first-in-the-nation contest, that nine out of ten can’t manage to haul their butts down to the junior high on caucus night. […]
…Yet around 200,000 of them, possessed of no greater wisdom or insight than the rest of us, will determine who presides over this nation of 300 million for the next four years.
* And then there’s New Hampshire…
If nothing else, unlike Iowans, they have the good grace to find their way to the polls, at least to a degree. New Hampshire turnout in the 2004 primary was under 30 percent; in 2000, when both parties had contested primaries, it hit 44 percent. (Figures on primary turnout in the last two elections can be found here.)
But only three times since the current nomination system took effect in 1972, and only once in the last 20 years, has the New Hampshire winner in either party not been the man who placed either first or second in the Iowa caucus a week before.
* And why does this matter?
But while we are not literally forced, the imperious campaign press will do all it can to coerce us into narrowing our choices. Like Roman emperors glaring contemptuously at a collection of wounded gladiators, then turning their thumbs down as the crowd roars its assent to the execution, they will pronounce candidates dead on the judgment of a few thousand Iowans. No appeals to mercy or reason will be allowed once the judgment is rendered.
Question: I know this is a state politics blog, but how would you change the presidential nominating system to make it more fair? Or is it OK with you as is?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:14 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: On the 7 percent “solution” override
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - DHS responds, Madigan’s spokesperson calls it “an absolute lie” (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’d have half the delegates be unpledged. This would force candidates to go deeper in the process.
I’d start with smaller states and move toward bigger states. But I’d rotate which smaller states are first.
I’d include a mix of primaries and caucuses.
And I’d have formal interest group straw polls conducted online before the first primaries and caucuses. There would be an organized labor straw poll, a straw poll for members of environmental groups, a straw poll for members of veterans groups, etc.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:20 am
Abolish the Electoral College, and implement a national popular vote, without state administered primaries (Let each political party choose, and administer their own internal process for choosing who their candidate will be.) If people don’t like the process a party chooses, they are free to join another party or start a new political party.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:24 am
I think it should be broken down into 5-7 regional primaries over a 6-8 month period. It would reduce the baloney effect of Iowa and New Hampshire as the author suggests - but it would still allow for some local campaigning that the national elections don’t really permit.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:27 am
I would rotate the regions such that in year 0, the upper midwest would go first, then the southwest, lower midwest, southeast, midatlantic, pac-west, New England, Alaska & Hawaii… then in year 4, the upper midwest would go last and the other states would maintain their respective positions but move up 1 slot and so on so that each region gets to go first in an orderly way. This would keep any 1 state or region from making a cottage industry out of being first in the nation and would ensure that each region’s issues are considered at some point in time.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:27 am
I don’t have a major problem with it.
Any state that goes first is going to introduce biases. A single national primary day will mean that the news media and pundits select who the nominees will be.
Iowa and New Hampshire do take their job seriously. The Iowans figured out Howard Dean was a disaster-waiting-to-happen long before the national news media (or any national primary day) would have, and they did the Democratic party a huge service.
And for anyone on this blog who really likes Obama, he/ she should be down on their knees and thanking God that Iowa and NH go first and have so much influence. If there’s a national primary day, or bigger states had more early influence, Hillary would kick the stuffing out of Obama.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:30 am
It is fine.
Americans get the leadership they deserve.
Americans deserved George W. Bush, so they got him.
For instance, the people of Ohio cared more about gay marriage than they did about health insurance for children or about good union jobs. The result? We don’t have health insurance for children and Ohio has lost a lot of jobs, but those same people also are not burdened by gay marriage. As the fine people of Ohio figure out how to feed their kids and provide medical care for them, they can at least be comfored by the fact that at least traditional marriage is intact.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:33 am
Right, since Kerry would have been able to wave his wand and steel mills, GM plants, and other union jobs would have grown across Ohio. Surely there can’t be a non-presidential reason why $85/hr jobs that anyone else will do for $20/hr are leaving that state
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:37 am
This has been discussed for years and years.
Who made Iowa and New Hampshire important? The winners of these state’s nominating process and political punditry and hungry newspapers, that’s who. These states have had primaries and caucuses before and the winners of these events didn’t end up winning their party’s nominations before, did they? We never had an Estes Kefauver as president did we? Or a Douglas MacArthur? Television, newspapers and a bored media have turned these events into must-win or die political propositions.
No one cared a fig about Iowa until Carter came in THIRD and made it a big deal in 1976. Carter turned Iowa into something to watch, not Iowans or common sense voters. Bush Sr did the same thing with Iowa in 1980 but lost to Reagan, but the die was cast.
We don’t have to care how these states vote. What we do instead is allow our media to overstate their importance to the point where candidate actually drop out after losing in these places. For crying out loud, why do we care who wins the Ames Straw Poll? The entire scenario is media driven and deprives us of the chance to support our candidates.
We can either drive the media out of the process or recognize how we’ve changed with this wacky political process and alter it. Last month that was what seems to be what was proposed by a few US Senators in proposing regional revolving primaries and some order to the whole mess.
Last month, Joe Lieberman, testified in favor of a regional primary system before the Senate Rules Committee. Lieberman, along with Ann Klobacher, and Lamar Alexander, prsented S. 1905, the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007 to reform the current, front-loaded system.
Have we decided to take over a party’s nominating process? Do we have that right? Should we allow successful politicians the opportunity to take over this process and change it? Would this be like allowing gerrymandering, that is, it would let the winners make the rules of the game favoring them?
We do need a better way of doing this. We don’t have to turn every four years into a multimillion dollar circus slobbered over by elitist punditry hamhandling sincere candidates, do we?
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:45 am
National Primary Day is the only way to address it. Instead of states moving primary’s up earlier, kick it later and do it all on one day.
But consider this, without the Post Iowa meltdown, Howard Dean could be President…Yikes.
My biggest problem is with the caucus process as opposed to an actual ballot. Go to a caucus, and you will see union officials making sure rank and file don’t vote for the “wrong” person. That is too important to let a very small group dictate the outcome.
Comment by the patriot Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:46 am
Greg,
There is no doubt that John Kerry was more friendly to unions and to labor than George W. Bush was. Everybody knew that. Also, there is no doubt that a President Kerry would not have vetoed the children’s health care bill as Bush did yesterday.
Whether right or wrong, there were serious differences between the two candidates. The voters looked at those differences and decided what was more important to them.
The system works as it was designed to work.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:53 am
Of course he’s more friendly to unions. But supporting unions doesn’t create union jobs. Take steel jobs: unless the govt becomes an unlimited buyer of steel at such and such a price, the govt can’t promote those jobs.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:56 am
Greg,
I am not debating the merits (despite the fact that I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong on the merits of the two candidates, and as such, I would easily win any such debate).
This is a debate over procedure.
There was a clear distinction between the two candidates.
The voters looked at the candidates and decided what was more important.
They made a decision and got the President they deserve.
To point fingers at “the system” is ridiculous. The voters made the choice. They got what they wanted.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:01 am
I wonder if we should bring back the old smoke filled room or at least bring back the system that was in place before 1972. Make the national conventions mean something again. It’s not perfect but at least this time it won’t be two or three or so primaries deciding who’ll be the nominee.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:02 am
Wow, Skeeter, impressive. I actually agree with your conclusion about the system–to not complain about the process. But I wasn’t debating “the merits of the candidates” so I’m not sure how I could be clearly wrong.
I just don’t believe you help your point when you ascribe way too much economic influence to the presidency.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:08 am
In addition to having the order biased toward smaller states, I’d also bias the order in favor of states that were closer in the previous election.
Below is a ranked list of states with three or less U.S. House seats. They would be entered into a lottery with New Hamphire and New Mexico being the most likely to win and Utah and DC the least likely to win.
New Hampshire (50-49)
New Mexico (50-49)
Nevada (50-48)
Deleware (53-46)
Hawaii (54-45)
Maine (54-45)
West Virginia (56-43)
Montana (59-39)
Rhode Island (59-39)
Vermont (59-39)
South Dakota (60-38)
Alaska (61-36)
North Dakota (63-36)
Nebraska (66-33)
Idaho (68-30)
Wyoming (69-29)
Utah (72-26)
Washington, DC (89-9)
I’d add some additional caveats. One of the first two states has to have a substantial African-American population (DC), Latino population (NM or NV) or Native American population (AK, HI or maybe SD). One of the next two has to cover one of the other ethnic bases (if the first two states aren’t both states with large minority populations). And by the sixth state all the minority bases are covered.
There would also be a rule that the first four states have to be from different regions. No more than one can be from New England, Mid Atlantic (DC & DE), the Great Plains (NE, ND & SD) or the South West (NM and NV) or the West (ID, MT, UT or WY).
After the small states would be the almost small states.
Iowa (50-49)
Oregon (52-48)
Arkansas (54-45)
Connecticut (54-44)
Mississippi (60-40)
Kansas (62-37)
Oklahoma (66-34)
And then medium-sized states
Wisconsin (50-49)
Minnesota (51-48)
Colorado (52-47)
Missouri (53-46)
Washington (53-46)
Virginia (54-45)
Arizona (55-45)
Tennessee (57-43)
Louisiana (57-42)
South Carolina (58-41)
Kentucky (60-40)
Indiana (60-39)
Massachusetts (62-37)
Alabama (63-37)
Then the almost large states
Michigan (51-48)
New Jersey (53-47)
North Carolina (56-44)
Georgia (58-41)
And finally the large states
Ohio (51-49)
Pennsylvania (51-49)
Florida (52-47)
Illinois (55-45)
California (55-44)
New York (59-39)
Texas (61-38)
The big states won’t like going last, but if you make the rules so that 50% of the delegates are unpledged then the candidates will have to contest every state.
I’d allow the states to given the remaining 50% of the delegates in a winner take all system. So winning in California, Texas and New York would still be a big deal and provide the “momentum” going into the convention.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:14 am
What Squid said.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:17 am
I would make every state’s primary take place on the same day. The day would be sometime during mid-summer and would be on a Saturday. This would give candidates more time to get their message across during primary season while also shorting the amount of time between the end of the primary and the general election.
Momentum is no reason to vote for a candidate. Carrying one state should not be the sole reason for a primary voter to cast his or her vote for a candidate. Ideas and competence are should be tantamount.
I would also do away with party conventions. What a massive waste of time and money. They remind me more of high school pep rallies than anything.
As for the electoral college: I agree with Squid. Its time has passed. The popular vote must rule the day. Skeeter is also right that the people get what they deserve. The 51% who voted for Bush shouldn’t be shocked that he has done a poor job, and the 49% who voted for Hot Rod Blagojevich shouldn’t be surprised that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:20 am
It’s all about the money — States are tripping over each other left and right to move their primaries earlier so that they can get a bigger chunk of the pie in terms of campaing dollars being spent. They claim they want to be more ‘relevant’ in the process, but in the end its all about the money. Just like almost no campaign dollars in the 2004 general were spent in Illinois, because it was a ’safe’ Democratic state, it is pretty safe to assume that the amount of money being spent on the June 3rd Montana and South Dakota Democratic presidential primaries will be pretty small.
Without a fundamental change in the way Americans view politics and a fundamental change in the role money plays in the presidential race–there will be no change in the way the primaries are run. There will continue to be more front loading. It will continue indefinitely until a major-huge money or political scandal forces it to change. After all, nothing changes in our political system unless it is forced, and that happens when there there is fear among politicians that they might actually lose their jobs. That fear isn’t great enough right now to force a change
train111
Comment by train111 Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:22 am
Personally I’d just have one big national primary and be done with it. It would settle all this date moving business and everyone would have an equal shot at deciding the nominatee.
Comment by Crimefighter Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:22 am
The geist of this is that voters are influenced by the press covergae of the primaries and elections. This means you have three choices: 1) Press Blackouts - Do not release results for elections, or speculate on results, until all primaries are concluded; 2) educate voters - teach voters to not let poll results or other States primary results influence their decisions to vote; 3) some combination of 1 and 2.
Problem with a press blackout method is some canidates use this information to decide whether to continue expending time and money or drop out. IMHO, if they want to run, run for the long haul. The only truly effective solution is to not release results until all the elections are done.
2 is a pipe dream.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:27 am
ZC @ 10:30:
“…If there’s a national primary day, or bigger states had more early influence, Hillary would kick the stuffing out of Obama.”
Last poll I saw had Hillary up by 30 points, so I guess she’s kicking the stuffing out of him anyway. Just don’t tell the Sun-Times — they’re too busy doing heavy duty investigative pieces on how Obama proposed to his wife.
Back on topic — since I’m pretty much a free market system person, I say let things play out as they are.
We already have a de-facto national primary this year and then for eight months the two candidates will spend all their time fighting over the 5% of the public that will determine who wins the election.
Two guys not on the ballot — Osama Bin Laden and George Bush — will have open field running to do whatever they can to influence the election.
By the time the election rolls around, there will be so much voter-fatigue people will just be happy to get it over with.
Sometimes the system has to crash and burn before it gets fixed.
Comment by Old Elephant Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:35 am
We should keep the Electoral College. Otherwise, small states would have no voice in our Republic (and we would have been stuck with goofy Al Gore). Larger states should have more influence then Iowa and NH… maybe one from S,N,E and W as the earliest states and rotate them every election. The number should be kept down to 4 or so, therefore retail politics can continue.
Comment by Suburbs Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:40 am
Do you guys understand that the Electoral College isn’t part of the presidential nominating process?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:44 am
Okay, I’m gonna go way out.
Amend the Constitution to make us more of a parliamentary style democracy.
The President becomes head of state — only.
The speaker of the house function today becomes “prime minister” (by some other name) and hence chief executive.
No more gawd-awful presidental primaries. No more wait-out-the-clock-to-the-end-of-term situations like today with GWBush. No more impossibly cumbersome impeachment mechanism. A no confidence vote and the chief executive/legislator moves to the back benches. (And yes, were it today, Nancy Pelosi probably would be “chief executive” in this scenario.)
And cheerfully I say that the chances of this happening in my lifetime are zero.
But it’s something we all should bat around in concept from time to time.
Comment by Dooley Dudright Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:45 am
I think there should be a national primary day in late spring, or early fall, when a lot of people are in town. This would shorten the amount of time in between the primary and general election, and would hopefully cut down on all the money spent. Also, I would have the voting take place over the time span of a week to give people enough time to get to the polls.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:45 am
BTW, I didn’t see it directly mentioned in the article, but I’m sure this Adam Nagourney column helped spark it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/us/politics/12campaign.html
I always thought that piece was fluffy and based on a huge selection bias; that is, concentrating on the few people who attend everything.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:56 am
Squid,
Many of the states do not run the primaries — the parties do within those states.
Also, the Electoral College has nothing to do with primaries. Completely separate (in fact, the EC is embodied in the Constitution; primaries are not).
–
As for process, I’d suggest rotating sets of super-primaries (not a new idea — Suburbs mentions one iteration of it). Regions get grouped together to make it easier for candidates to go from state to state and every presidential year the order of those regions is changed.
Have five to 10 regions and vote every other week or so (giving candidates enough time to make up ground if needs be).
That said, many of the suggestions here (including the one I just wrote) imply a quasi-federalization, or at least a “nationalization” of the process. Given that primaries are a function of the political party process, not necessarily the electoral process, there’s something to be said for simply let things shake out (letting the parties do what they want — primaries are their gigs after all).
But yes, the media put much too much emphasis on Iowa (and New Hampshire).
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:57 am
Regional primaries, 4 or 5 of them, spaced 4-6 weeks apart. Every election cycle, rotate which region goes first (New England, Atlantic, Midwest, South, Far West). Try to make the regions roughly equal in population and/or in share of the electoral vote. (The boundaries can be changed between election cycles if necessary) This way, each candidate can concentrate on one area of the country and issues important to those voters — i.e., energy costs in the Northeast, jobs/unemployment or ag issues in the Midwest, immigration in the West, etc.
Comment by Lainer Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:57 am
Also, move general and primary election days to Saturday or Sunday as is done in other countries. I don’t think too many people have religious objections to voting on Sunday anymore (and if they did, they could always vote absentee or early), nor do people have to make arduous one- or two-day trips by horse and buggy to their county seat to vote anymore.
Comment by Lainer Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:03 pm
Rotating Regional Primaries seems like the answer that both addresses the problem and is the easiest to sell.
– SCAM
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:04 pm
Dooley, if your parlimentary system were implemented at the state level, Mike Madigan would be running the show and Blago would be merely a figurehead… oh wait, I think that’s already happened
Comment by Lainer Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:09 pm
Primaries are God’s gift to the Parties. The NHamp and Iowa are out there in front for ego and dollar dropping.
With national media lovingly breathing down every candidate’s behind, examining with fervor the social minutiae and not directly pushing for one’s favorites, it is not unlike the MSM media covering the Notre Dame football team,
These campaigns are obscenely expensive with the special guys like MO.ORG with george Soros on one side, the Hollywood elite on another, etc having their way with the candidates.
Too expensive, too time consuming. (Perhaps we ought to install gas rationing for candidate planes, not to mention a word tax.)
The parties, by the way, opt to accept the delegates from all comers, although the Dems are threatening not to credential Floridians if they move their primary up. No advertising until March, Primaries in June, a Convention in July — the hotter the better — a platform in August, and an Election in November. Every dollar spent over $10 Million would require an equal contribution to the National Party for distribution ton the lesser candidates. Given today’s media, that would be the ticket. Qualified guys like Bill Richardson might stand a better chance.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:16 pm
I like the idea of a rotating presidential primary.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:16 pm
We should NOT eliminate the electoral college.
The reason why our framers put in the electoral college, after much debate, was there was a concern that if it were only a popular vote, then the candidates would focus only on the large cities and their states (where most of the votes are) and ignore the rural areas and the smaller states. If that was a concern in the late 18th century, then it is doubly important now in the 21st century. The electoral college is there so that candidates will have to focus on all the voters, not just the urban area.
As for the primaries, It seems to me that there could be some form of national lottery or revolving system to spread around and spread out the primaries. In 2008, the presidential election will be largely decided by February and over about a 1 month time. WAY too compressed. Have 4 states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) have the early primaries. Then let the rest of the states revolve at different dates. Carl Nyberg had some very interesting ideas about how to do this based on the percentage for each state.
Comment by Trafficmatt Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:23 pm
ZC said:
“Iowa and New Hampshire do take their job seriously. The Iowans figured out Howard Dean was a disaster-waiting-to-happen long before the national news media (or any national primary day) would have, and they did the Democratic party a huge service.”
Did they really?
Dean would probably have defeated Bush.
Comment by True Observer Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:24 pm
Most of the posters have missed their calling.
They should have become urban planners.
Comment by True Observer Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:30 pm
Team Sleep said, “The 51% who voted for Bush shouldn’t be shocked that he has done a poor job, and the 49% who voted for Hot Rod Blagojevich shouldn’t be surprised that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.”
49% is not a majority–it is a merely a plurality; and in this case, it is also a minority. 51% voted AGAINST Blagojevich–more than the 49% who voted FOR him, so I am not sure it is fair to say that Illinois voters got what they deserved.
With our outdated system of plurality elections, we could have elected an even LESS popular candidate. For example, in a plurality election, it is possible to win with only 34% of the vote in a three-way race, 26% in a four-way race, and 21% in a five-way race. (That’s winning with 66% opposed, 74% opposed, and 79% opposed!) This happens all the time in local municipal elections.
For Illinois voters to actually get what they deserve (want) then we need a system of MAJORITY elections in Illinois. That means requiring a candidate to earn a majority–more than 50% of the total vote–in order to win an election. After all, isn’t majority rule a component of democracy?
There are two ways this is traditionally done. The first is to use a system of runoff elections; however, a much better way is to use Instant Runoff Voting. I suspect, however, that because the whole “spoiler” argument, the Democratic leadership in control of Illinois does not support majority rule, because it would eliminate the one argument that they use to discourage competition. (In other words, they’re anti-democratic.)
Suburbs said, “We should keep the Electoral College. Otherwise, small states would have no voice in our Republic…”
Who cares? People are people–one person one vote. Nobody, other than maybe in Texas, is loyal or patriotic to their state anymore. I see tons of people flying United States flags, but when do you ever see someone flying an Illinois flag? (You know, the one with “state sovereignty” written upside down.)
With technology and mass media, the cultural differences between states are no where near what they used to be; and the needs, interests, and wants of people throughout the United States, regardless of state, is rapidly converging.
Besides, most states are simply “creations” of the federal government anyway, so sovereignty and states rights is a bit of a farce. (See Chap. LXVII here.)
Carl Nyberg said, “Do you guys understand that the Electoral College isn’t part of the presidential nominating process?”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t affect the other.
Dooley Dudright, “Amend the Constitution to make us more of a parliamentary style democracy. The President becomes head of state — only.”
Hmmm… Now THAT’S interesting. I do tend to favor reforms that take the focus off individual personalities and instead put them onto organizations (parties) and more importantly PLATFORMS and ideas.
Rob_N said, “Many of the states do not run the primaries — the parties do within those states.”
That’s true. Some states do use a convention; but I live in Illinois, so I still wish that the federal government would step and and force the state to stop imposing the primary system. You know, when the Illinois Green Party choose Rich Whitney as its gubernatorial candidate, it did it by CONSENSUS, at a statewide annual membership meeting. This is in line with our platform, seeking to reform the decision making process to make it more collaborative; however, essentially, the state is telling us that we can not collaborate within our own organization–we must compete, and we must VOTE (Something we normally avoid to try doing because it only divides.)
Lainer said, “Dooley, if your parlimentary system were implemented at the state level, Mike Madigan would be running the show and Blago would be merely a figurehead…”
That’s assuming that we eliminate the Senate, rather than the House, which, incidentally, I think IS the right thing to do. There is no reason to have a bicameral legislature within a single state like Illinois (We are not balancing the interests of states with the interests of the population overall–these are the essentially the SAME constituencies here in Illinois.) Moving to a unicameral legislature would be a lot more efficient, and it would save taxpayer money.
Incidentally, did I mention that eliminating state-administered primaries, and forcing political parties to pay for conducting their own internal decision making process, would save significant taxpayer money?
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 12:41 pm
How about having all of the presidential primaries on the last Tuesday in April? If the states want to have their own primaries on the same day, that’s fine. The presidential nominating conventions can still be in the summer and they’ll have meaning again.
Comment by been there Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 1:32 pm
Problem is under the deligate/electoral college system, small states have too much electoral power. The entire electoral college system is flawed. It would be easier just to make it nationwide, and whichever candidate has more popular vote wins. popular vote works in state primary’s, it should work nationally, too.
Comment by pickles!! Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 1:38 pm
Option number 2 is we go back to having a king. Americans are two dumb, and lazy for democracy to work
Comment by pickles!! Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 1:41 pm
Gentlemen and Ladies,
We are not a Unitary Democracy, we are a Federal Republic. The Electoral College is part and parcel of that.
Being a Federal Republic means the states have powers, if they don’t give them away.
The fastest way to a socialist state and then a dictatorship (hello, pickles!!) is through tearing down the Federal underpinnings.
It is not perfect but it works.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 1:46 pm
Not sure if changing the presidential nominating system will make a hill of beans difference. Media uses huge influence to direct the voters as they pre-select who to ignore. Problem is, the general population has chosen to ignore both the process and the opportunity to vote. Until we can change that mindset, we are pretty much wasting our time revamping the process. Why, with the time we must spend on important issues like following Brittney, who has time for politics and world stability. We can’t get folks interested in state politics, much less national. Maybe we are right for a King? Whomever we elect I hope they have a name that fits with King …?…..Guess that leaves out King Hillary?
Comment by Justice Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:00 pm
“Americans are two dumb”
That would make a great bumper sticker!
Uh - “too”
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:05 pm
The electoral college should go. The conditions the framers dealt with have long since gone. And no one then could have envisioned how severe malapportionment of votes would become in the Senate.
As for the primaries, as an Iowa caucus veteran myself, it is a serious process, it involves a couple of hours of one’s time actually in the caucus meeting itself, and it is a deliberative event. Iowa has done a very good job over the years at winnowing presidential fields. I personally wish we could have a national caucus.
I’m torn because I think the time may have come for some kind of national selection event, but I also believe that most of the people currently pushing reform are doing so out of sour grapes about having been given the middle finger by Iowa. The great thing about caucuses in general and Iowa’s caucus in particular is that it skewers empty rhetoric and promotes substance. Why? The process is inherently biased in favor of people who are more informed and involved politically, whether on the left or the right. It does not favor ideologues and it actively works against the ignorant.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:08 pm
American Idol. Survivor. Top Chef. The Batchelor. Dancing wih the Stars. The Apprentice.
I think we know what needs to be done. Fire up the tiki torches!
Comment by Muskrat Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:08 pm
The candidate who raises the most money in 12 months gets to be the President. All the millions of dollars in cash must be saved (not a dime spent on campaigns) and used entirley to retire our nation’s debt. Make the campaign consultants go out and find real jobs.
Comment by washmyhands Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:42 pm
Even while Obama trails Hillary by 30+ points in some polls nationally, he continues to tie or lead her in Iowa. Iowa is fast emerging as the Obama campaign’s best shot at breaking out, the same way Kerry versus Dean. Michelle Obama SAID the other day that her husband couldn’t win the primary if he didn’t carry Iowa.
And this system seems OK to me, reason being is simple specialization and division of labor. Iowa voters have been doing this a long time, for decades, and they don’t blindly follow national public opinion polls. It didn’t have to be Iowa and NH, but it is. If we gave the role to somebody else, they’d stumble through their own trial-and-error process and eventually get better at it, but I don’t see how that would credibly improve our selection process.
Contrast IA and NH with Nevada. That was the state that WAS bumped up this year, to try and add more diversity to the process. But nobody in Nevada knows what they’re doing, is my impression from the media coverage (which might be hasty). No one knows who will show up. The voters there appear ill-equipped to evaluate 7+ candidates. If we rotated other states into the early primaries, we’d be creating 6-7 other Nevadas every campaign cycle. And then some proposals rotate them right out again, just when they had started to develop some sophistication. Or letting small states go before big ones introduces its own set of biases (rural and agricultural over big-city industrial … the same criticism we wage right now at Iowa. So would diversity truly improve?)
Rotating the states that first nominate Presidents sounds a bit to me like rotating the press corps who cover Illinois politics in Springfield every year, no exceptions. After a year, Rich needs to find another job and let somebody else step in, and Rich isn’t really allowed to communicate much with that person either. This will produce a wiser method of nominating Presidents?
You need some familiarity with a multi-multi-candidate race in order to participate in it intelligently. I give IA and NH voters more credit than most I guess.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:50 pm
Given the “Me first” mania of the states, a federal primary law is coming. It’s just a question of when, and whether it passes constitutional review.
We have tilted so “democratic” with primaries that the party leaders and conventions are bordering on irrelevant in the actual selection process, as state leaders only matter to the extent they can deliver primary votes, and the conventions have no teeth. It strikes me as wrong, and there should be a balance between voters and party leaders, somewhat akin to the differing roles of the House and Senate in Washington - one to be more volatile following the current public mood, one to be more sober and longer term in view.
A century ago, party members across the country did not have good communication, and rarely saw each other, so conventions and platforms made sense. They make less sense today, and are therefore less relevant. That needs to change.
To juice up the conventions is to strengthen the state party apparatus, and improve the relevance of state party leaders in making the selection. That will make unemployed gazillionaires realize that more than slick TV blitzes will be required to get the nomination.
1. Install rotating regional primaries.
2. Make all allotments of delegates from primaries to be proportional to votes (rounded up or down, with a coin flip by the State Party Chairman on a 50-50 exact fraction.) no “winner take all.”
3. Give more say to the state parties in appointing at large voting delegates.
4. All pledged delegates are freed after the first ballot at the national convention.
And,
5. Make the bi-annual federal Election Day a national holiday, but keep it on a Tuesday.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 2:58 pm
Truthy James,
Why do you pick on George Soros and Hollywood folks? There’s just as much, if not more, money flowing from conservative wallets like Coors, Scaiffe, etc.
Funny how conservatives are against campaign contribution limits until they need something to complain about.
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 3:21 pm
I like Carl’s idea, but I don’t think either party is going to want the close states to have more influence in years when their candidate is an unopposed incumbent. In other words, in 2004, the Republicans would not have wanted Kerry, Dean, et al, to be the main news story for weeks or months in any close states, whether it is small, or (especially) if it is large.
I love Muskrat’s idea, which, in some ways, is like what we have now–it’s just that people in Iowa vote off the first one or two people, and then NH votes, and then….
trafficmatt is right about the primaries being too compressed, which is ironic considering how the nominees will be campaigning for about 2 years by the time it is over.
Comment by winco Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 3:59 pm
This piece was one of the more ridiculous things I’ve ever read. Criticize the state’s all you want, but using turnout, the fact that IA and NH agree more often than not and that the press reports what goes on there as your evidence? Weak.
Comment by Tom B. Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 4:40 pm
winco,
The parties want the contests sorta out early.
However, it’s gotten to the point that it’s too early for the taste of most people (meaning, the people who don’t live in Iowa and New Hampshire).
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 5:08 pm
1. Eliminating the electoral college has nothing to do with NOMINATING the presidential candidates. It also goes against the spirit of having a federal republic.
2. Rob– I think it was the “moderates” who wanted to limit campaign contributions.
3. Forget primaries. The primary system was designed to give “the people” a voice in the party nominating system. Problem is, “the people” generally don’t give two craps, as demonstrated by turnout. Eliminate the primaries and throw it all back the the party caucuses. Let the parties set their own rules for nominating candidates. That way, the mainline organizations of the two parties get to run exactly who they want to run. If “the people” don’t like it, then it won’t be long before the two party system is a thing of the past and we have three, four, or five way races like in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Come to think of it, we had some pretty good presidents then.
Vote Whig.
Comment by HoosierDaddy Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 7:32 pm
The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary have become anachronisms - many of the other states are no longer respecting the tradition that Iowa and New Hampshire have the right to have a disproportionate influence on the selection of nominees. Given the leapfrogging and one-upsmanship being attempted by various states, it is evident to me that the current system is doomed.
I agree that some type of federal law will be required to eliminate the squabbling and scrambling among states for an influential primary date.
As others have suggested,rotating regional primaries,spaced a month or so apart, seem like the simplest and most practical solution.
Comment by Captain America Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 8:27 pm
“The primary system was designed to give ‘the people’ a voice in the party nominating system.”
The administration of primary elections by the state is based upon flawed logic. People were unhappy about being shut out of the nominating process by party bosses in smoky back rooms; but the correct solution was not to implement a primary system that denies people (parties) their constitutional right to freedom of association–the correct solution was to allow those unhappy with the undemocratic process used by the Democratic and Republican parties to join other parties and/or start new political parties.
There was absolutely no reason to “force open” the internal decision making process of political parties and essentially strip parties of their ability to determine, for themselves, what it is for which they stand and who they would like their candidates to be. These days, “capture” of established political parties is a matter of law–a political party can’t stop anyone from running to become its committeeman; and indeed, it can’t stop a group of people from running to become its committeemen, even if those seeking the position are known to merely be raiding a party.
The state administered primary system has essentially propped up old political parties that may have otherwise died by now. If people were unhappy with the decision making process used by the Democratic and Republican parties, they would have eventually left those parties; and those parties would have ceased to exist.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:28 pm
I was involved w/ IL and Springfield politics for many years and now have experinced my first Iowa caucus in 2004 since moving here 7 years ago. Turnout is rather deceptive measure for the caucuses. In 2004 the Republican caucuses were scarcely attended because there was no contest. The Democrat caucuses, particularly here in Des Moines, set records for turnout in 2004. That was despite the fact it was 5 degrees above zero on caucus night. I have been told the 1996 caucuses for both parties were light due since there was not multiple candidates. If IL weather was as cold as it was in 2004 in Iowa, primary turnout would be just as low. Since you have moved your primary to February, you will probably has some very low turnouts. Iowans definitly take this process seriously. There is a lot of time and effort put into it. A caucus is a different aniamal than a primary. It can more resemble the old Renfro/Kane chairmanship votes in Sangamon County back in the 80’s. I have posted this before but will repeat again, Iowa may not be racially diverse but it is very diverse economically. Carol Mosely-Braun and Al Sharpton do not fare well here but Obama will because his message appeals to a broader base. Our first in the nation status is not perfect but it is not as biased as the set up leads you to believe.
Comment by kernel245 Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 11:40 pm
Hoosier,
It was Truthy James who complained about George Soros and Hollywood “elites” financing campaigns. I questioned his one-sided whining given that a great many wealthy conservatives fund operations like Media Research Center, Heritage Foundation, etc.
Conservatives also tend to rail against fundraising limits (ie, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform).
There is a disconnect between complaining that campaign contribution limits are somehow anti-free speech and then turning around to try and have it both ways by also carping about wealthy donors donating large sums of money to 527s and PACs.
To his credit, Truthy James appears to not complain about campaign contribution limits (indeed, he’s proposed some limitation ideas of his own), though he does often complain about the money involved in politics — as he did above.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Oct 5, 07 @ 2:50 am
Rob N –
Believe it or not, I did not mean to single out any party.
I do object to the obscene amount of money required to nominate and than to elect a national political officer.
What I see is that, after the primary the national campaign committees come into the states and suck up money, deploying it to other states as if the home state and home District did not matter.
Of course, in Illinois the campaign warchests are filled with public sector employee contributions as well as money from bond lawyers and trial attorneys, bond firms and contractors — all acting in enlightened self interest of course.
It applies to both parties, which is why the Secretary of State’s office is the most importnat money machine in Illinois
At least the retail flyers promise something you can actually purchase and use, but the political flyers imply that your pittance will somehow influence the candidate, your answering a supposed survey with loaded questions will make your views truly known.
The candidates need the money because campaigns are too long, and for a two year term, money raising if not campaigning must start the minute the victor takes his hand off the bible.
Here we sit in the information age, when ideas move with the spoeed of electricity, and millions upon millions are spent so that forums can provide one minute answers on a amyriad of questions again and again, repeatedly until the public is numb, dazed, falling asleep.
That is what too much money and too much time does for the people and the country.
Reporters — print and TV love it, for it keeps them employed. TV stations, radio stations and newspapers love it because the longer seasons mean more media buys. Campaign staffs love it because it gets them paid and the promise of future employment.
And the voting percentages drop.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Oct 5, 07 @ 7:28 am