Reform Primary System

All of the media buzz has underscored one sure thing: the primary system needs to be reformed. Technically, primary elections are state elections, but they have far reaching national implications. In so many cases, the primary races are all but decided before even half the nation votes. Of the first 12 states to hold primaries, South Carolina is the only one from the South. Iowa and New Hampshire, those two states that attract so much attention and play such a key role in the race, are hardly representative of mainstream America. Democrats in those states are very liberal and Republicans there are quite mild. The influence that comes with an early primary goes a long way to tempt state party officials to push their primaries earlier and earlier. Just a few montsh ago, Florida Democrats tried to stage an "unofficial" straw poll in December. The madness has got to stop.

A more intelligent primary system would be one in which the states are group into four regional super primaries. This enables candidates to focus on regional issues and puts an end to the leap frog game played by states vying to be first. If implemented for 2008, the primary would go as follows: on the first Tuesday of February, a primary would be held in New England, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Virginia and West Virginia. This region accounts for 135 electoral votes and encompasses the the mega-city stretching from Petersburg, Va to Portland, Me.

On the third Tuesday of February, primaries would be held in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee and the Carolinas. These states account for 134 electoral votes. The importance of the South cannot be under-estimated.

On the first Tuesday of March, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, all of which combine for 134 electoral votes, will cast ballots. Two weeks later, the rest of the states will vote.

So that no region always has the biggest say in the final outcome, every four years, the order in which each region votes will change. This system confines the primary elections to February and March, enables candidates to focus on one region at a time (which is more cost effective for them), gives each area equal say in the outcome, and provides a logical and consistent method for choosing candidates.

I like the idea of two small states getting the first crack a week apart. Perhaps two more diverse states could be chosen. Say South Carolina and Deleware. West Virginia would be a good one as well.

What I like is the focus on the canidates as they are forced to actually go out in public and shake hands and take questions. They are often forced to go unscripted.

A bunch of states on the same day means a quick stump speech and then flying off to a different state for another quick stump speech. The candidates and the media totally control the action.

The only real way to improve our election system is to improve the voting habits of the individual voters. The reason that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence on the selection process is that too many people place too much emphasis on what happens there. People need to stand by their candidates past the first few primaries and not switch allegiances just because a candidate loses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan lost quite a few states before the momentum changed. The best thing that could happen for the system is for John Kerry to win all but South Carolina on Tuesday but end up losing the nomination. If that happened, people would stop believing that Iowa and New Hampshire decide everything, and they would keep looking at the candidates and issues instead of the "horse race." The parties could also stop trying to decide the nominee before the primaries start and could instead let the primary system work to select the nominee.

Another Terri's Law
Bill

Primaries and caucuses focus on giving one or two candidates momentum. They are not about issues or character. John Kerry became the anti-Dean candidate and that is the only reason for his success. Where are the principles? It is all about elect-ability. That is crap. Why can't the parties pay for their own primaries and have a date for it? Why should Iowa and New Hampshire decide who the candidate is going to be? The system in place now does not show the true feelings of both parties. I don't like it.

I agree the current primary system is profoundly retarded. I can't imagine why they don't fix it.

Joe Lieberman introduced a bill to do something similar to what you outlined and when called on at a New Hampshire debate he couldn't back away from it fast enough, disgusting.

"Fixing it" would require a constitutional amendment giving the Feds some power over how and when elections are held.

Instant Runoff elections would entirely eliminate the need for primaries. Unfortunately, the Pres election system would still be complicated because each state would be adopting it individually.

""Fixing it" would require a constitutional amendment giving the Feds some power over how and when elections are held."

No, it wouldn't. The parties can do it themselves.

I am talking about the Prez primaries. I have no problem with other primaries, except in Louisiana.

The primaries (as we know them) are run by the state governments and the dates are set by the state governments. If the Dem and Rep national parties wanted to synchronize primary elections, they would need to get their people in the state legislatures to make the change.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.