It's Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process

GOPUSA - The Loft ^ | 1/8/2008 | Bobby Eberle

[2nd amendment mama]

Over the years, there have been attempts by some members of the Republican National Committee to change the process by which the GOP presidential nominee is determined. Years ago, there was talk of "smoke filled rooms" at the national convention in which deals would be hashed out to determine a nominee. As the years went on, the state primary/caucus elections become more powerful, and the nominee was determined long before the convention.

The change from "smoke filled rooms" to putting the power in the hands of the voters was a good thing. However, a new set of dynamics has been created which hurts the process and again requires changes. States at the end of the primary schedule were becoming irrelevant. So, more and more states began "front loading" the primaries -- moving them up in the schedule. As more and more states have their primaries earlier and earlier, the race for the nomination becomes a defacto national election instead of a state by state contest as it should be.

With so many primary elections and caucuses up front, only candidates with serious reserves of cash or media attention can compete. There is no time to build momentum and use that momentum to help generate new funds. Here is how the months of January and February are laid out in 2008 for state primary elections and caucuses:

January 3 -- Iowa
January 5 -- Wyoming
January 8 -- New Hampshire
January 15 -- Michigan
January 19 -- Nevada, South Carolina
January 29 -- Florida
February 1 -- Main
February 5 (Super Tuesday) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, West Virginia
February 9 -- Louisiana, Kansas
February 12 -- Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia
February 19 -- Washington, Wisconsin

That is a total of thirty-four states plus the District of Columbia which will hold their elections before March.

In addition to eliminating "front loading," something should also be done to reduce the artificially inflated importance of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire. These two states often spell doom for a candidate who doesn't get off to a fast start, yet these two states provide only a small fraction of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. No candidate's bid for the presidency should be determined by how he or she finished in one state, yet that's exactly what we see now from the media. They pronounce gloom and doom or anoint an heir apparent after one or two contests. That is not fair and not right.

So, what can be done about it? A number of proposals have been floated by various Republican activists and party leaders. As noted in a story by the Austin American-Statesman, some of those proposals include the following:

Texas plan: Primaries would be spaced from February through May, with states and territories broken into four groups taking turns starting off the presidential election years. Under the plan, each group of states and territories is balanced by a similar share of electoral votes, convention delegates and states won by either the Republican or Democratic presidential nominees the previous election. Texas voters would act at the same time as voters in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Delaware plan: States broken into four groups by population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-size states and finally the 12 largest states.

Rotating regional primaries: The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed regional primaries, with the order of regions changing every election cycle. While ensuring that all states in a given 20-year period would have a chance to be among the first primary dates, it would make retail politicking, or meeting voters individually, very difficult.

American plan: Also known as the California plan, it suggests randomly selecting states to hold their primaries or caucuses over 10 two-week intervals, with a gradual increase in the total population of states and territories holding primaries/caucuses.

Of those current plans being discussed each has merit and offers an approach to changing a broken system. However, something like the Delaware Plan makes the most sense. I would even consider using more groups than just four.

Under the Delaware plan, smaller states would go first in the process. This is a good practice in that 1) the smaller states (other than Iowa and New Hampshire) often get overlooked, and 2) candidates don't have to worry about a large bankroll so early in the process. Success in smaller states has just as much to do with organization as it does with money -- e.g. Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Candidates with lower name ID and money but who have a good message would have a better shot at scoring a victory or high finish and using those results to build some momentum and generate fundraising interest.

Then the candidates would move along to slightly larger states. More delegates would be at stake, but as the size of the state increases, the strategies for campaigning also change. Money becomes much more important, and candidates would have had more time under the Delaware Plan to raise money if they generated voter interest.

Former Republican National Committee member John Ryder was quoted in the Memphis Daily News as saying he sees "clear skies ahead for a reordering of the presidential primary process starting in 2012." Ryder, who advocates the Delaware Plan, noted:

"Nobody would be able to assemble a majority of the delegates until they got to that last group of states, which means that every state is in play," Ryder said. "The principal problem with the present system is that only the early states seem to count. If you hold a primary in May or June under the present system, it doesn't matter. The nominee has already been selected. The primary becomes irrelevant."

Regardless of what plan is adopted, the process definitely needs to change. By spacing out the process and going from smaller to larger states, more candidates could compete, more states would be involved, and a nominee more representative of the will of the entire Republican electorate around the country would be more likely to emerge.

Republican National Committee contact info:
Phone: 202-863-8500
E-mail: e/info@gop.com

>> Discuss this topic in The Forum

[mysterio]

Doubt it. My suspicion is he’s been offered Hillary’s VP slot or a high ranking cabinet position in her administration. Otherwise, I think he would have given the Presidential race a shot.

[dashing doofus]

I think the idea of rotating states, randomly, makes more sense. I think any type of national or super-regional primary would make all the smaller states irrelevant, regardless of whether the results were held until voting was finished. The candidates would just focus on the states with the greatest number of delegates, like they do now for electors in the largest states.

When this primary is over, NH and Iowa will be ignored by the candidates as usual.

[af_vet_rr]

The problem ? The MSM deciding who THEY want us to hear. When they shut out candidates who are organized enough to be on the ballots, they hurt us all.

True...CNN has a lot of ex-Clinton staffers and Faux is run by somebody who worked for Giuliani, and so it's no wonder that they both push those two.

[cinives]

We need to count it as a campaign contribution if the public media (ABC/CBS/NBC/PBS) gives more time to some than others.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

Long Overdue

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[2nd amendment mama]

Ping

[BlueNgold]

Interesting ... worth some thought.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Especially when the MSM declares winners long before the process is over.”

before it’s started! Like leaving candidates out of debates.

[mngran2]

I know you weren't defending it. Didn't mean to imply you were.

How many registered voters turn out in California? I bet its pretty dismal.

If so, maybe that's because Iowa, New Hampshire and the media will have already declared the nominees. But even if every man woman and child voted in New Hampshire, California would only need a 4% turnout to have more people cast ballots.

[TChris]

Brief translation: Waaaaahhhh! My guy isn’t going to be nominated!

[Arrowhead1952]

How about all states on the same day or no results given until all of the caucuses and primaries have been held?

Also, no crossing state lines to vote in the caucuses or primaries. Absentee ballots would be OK for those out of their precincts.

[dashing doofus]

Not buying it. If a candidate loses NH and Iowa, and still thinks he/she has a good chance of winning the larger, later primaries, they will stay in.

E.g. Hillary (if she loses here) and Rudy.

[mngran2]

The problem ? The MSM deciding who THEY want us to hear. When they shut out candidates who are organized enough to be on the ballots, they hurt us all.

And how do your propose to solve that? State-run media?

[bassmaner]

First get the 18th repealed and put senator election back the way it was designed.

You mean the 17th. We can all drink to the fact that the 18th (Prohibition) was repealed in 1933.

[Resolute Conservative]

You are right the 8 is next to the 7 and I have big fingers :)

[cinives]

Good question.

My not-well-thought-out proposal might be to give each candidate who qualifies for federal matching funds some ad time on public broadcast media -ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS- so everyone can see who’s running and what they want to do. Kinda like the Comcast newsmakers 6 minute promos.

[DrewsDad]

Thanks for posting this. We need to do everything we can to increase the voice of the grassroots.

Everyone attending their precinct meetings should put this forth as a resolution to be adopted at the local, district, and state levels so that they get a mandate to change it at the national level.

[weegee]

There are also the “crossover” voters who register for the Republican primary to either select the weakest or the farthest “Left” candidate they can.

[nikos1121]

Illinois. I think this year it’s going to be brokered conventions

[ModelBreaker]

By spacing out the process and going from smaller to larger states, more candidates could compete, more states would be involved, and a nominee more representative of the will of the entire Republican electorate around the country would be more likely to emerge.

This would probably be a good thing. But neither party is interested in it.

Both the D's and the R's want to have the appearance of a primary, the result of which is dictated by the money guys. The establishment of both parties is aghast at what is happening this year. HRC and Romney were their designated winners. The proposed scheme would take things even further out of the money-guy's control.